Talk:Lucy Letby

Initial investigation

While I'm here, can someone find a correct reference for this in the trial section, "it was discovered that Letby had falsified patient records, covering her tracks by changing the times some babies collapsed to make sure she could not be placed at the scene". The reference [3] 16:00 is to a section of the panorama program where the presenter talks to a parent and to a friend of Letby. Createangelos (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, it was actually sixteen minutes into the ITV documentary, not Panorama. I'll change it now. MeltingDistrict (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. Note this discussion is no longer relevant, but something that is worrying me a little is, some of the suspicion is because Letby did *not* attend to things, seemed to ignore distress (as in the Mom's first approach to Baby E when Letby was involved with a computer terminal), others are because she DID attend to things (numerous reports of her 'hovering over' an incubator). Can it really be suspicious when she *does* stand over one incubator, and then suspicious because she does *not* stand over another? Is the 'overly caring' angle really making sense too, as a source of suspicion? Not that it is relevant what I think, but seems to me that what one has here is the medical evidence of embolisms and insulin from the expert testimony, and the statistical evidence of a cluster. Also, it ought to be irrelevant whether she 'accepts' the medical evidence. That's about her opinions about the expert testimony, or her own level of expertise, not about what she may have done. It needn't be up to her to find an alternative explanation. If there is none, she's guilty, but if she can't find one it just means she's either guilty or un-knowledgeable. Createangelos (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Sarrita Adams

Sarrita Adams published two papers in peer reviewed journals and contributed a chapter to a book. They are often cited. Having got her PhD, she then started her own consultancy business. She is a scientist and works as a scientist. She is in the business of helping cure children with rare diseases. She is not in the business of publishing research papers as a tenured academic. The Telegraph is not a very reliable source. What is the relevance of her being based in the US and not being related in any way to the hospital or the families or whatever? Isn’t that something positive?

Regarding the so-called conspiracy theorists: four independent scientists have gathered together statistical and medical material and published it on various internet sites and blogs. Three fundraisers have started up. An appeal is very likely. As you know, there are arguments that the police investigation was biased and the trial unfair. Obviously, these developments are not for Wikipedia right now, but may become relevant. Richard Gill (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I changed some of the wording in that section to be closer to the sources and appear more impartial. I think care should be taken to make sure the language stays WP:IMPARTIAL, and that section of the article should comply with WP:NPOV too. I don't know whether it does currently, I'd have to look at what sources say about this more Tristario (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The telegraph article does actually dedicate a fair bit of space describing the arguments made by those concerned about how the trial was conducted, and I think WP:NPOV means we should be including some detail on those arguments rather than just including criticism of them. I may do that if someone else doesn't get around to it Tristario (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

But as part of NPOV, we need to consider WP:UNDUE. Including the views and arguments of these people, who the Telegraph described as web sleuths and conspiracy theorists (or at least their supporters) seems to me to really bring into question the weight should be giving to such theories, especially considering when one of the two editors above who wants to include them IS Richard Gill, the person who's theories are in question! This brings up all kinds of WP:Conflict of interest issues. Looking at previous discussions on talk, I see there has already been a discussion on the inclusion of Mr Gill's theories: Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 1#a statistician doubts the evidence, which ended with User:DeCausa, rightly in my view, concluding that it would be undue. This seems to me to be especially important considering the provided sourced context of Mr Gill and others: he has already been warned by police about contempt of court with his online activity, there seems to be questions on whether he will be arrested(!), and there have been clear concerns raised as sourced about the true crime content-makers and people playing private detectives like in the Nicola Bulley case here. Furthermore, with the sources stating that the defence specifically rejected using Mr Gill as part of their defence, for me this really seems to throw up all kinds of questions of why we should be including a platform for his views in any case, when the defence themselves didn't want it to be part of their case. Structuralists (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

When it was previously brought up that was from a primary source, this is from a secondary source. And the Telegraph does not describe Richard Gill as either a web sleuth or a conspiracy theorist. Whether he was considered to be in contempt of court or whether the defence didn't want his help doesn't have a bearing on whether this is WP:DUE. Note that this has been covered by other sources such as this one, where the chairman of the Dutch trade union for statisticians said "His analyses of these kinds of things are mathematically always of the highest level."

Note that when writing about living people you need to be very careful to be fair to the people you write about - currently that section is written almost specifically to portray Gill in an unfavorable light, and not include any other details. I don't think that follows the spirit of WP:BLP, and I find that concerning. I'm not suggesting giving any significant amount of weight to what he says - but choosing to only include negative details about him seems to me to be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Tristario (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph article, notably titled How internet sleuths are already trying to prove Lucy Letby innocent, starts off by introducing straight away the main point of the article, that "the conspiracy theories are already circulating" and "They don’t necessarily argue that she is innocent, but rather that there may have been holes in the evidence or issues with how it was presented in court". It then follows: "Statistician Richard Gill, 72, is one of those backing a controversial claim that there are holes in Letby’s case and it should be retried. He doesn’t profess to know for certain that she is innocent, but argues there are issues with the way evidence was presented to the court". I agree that it doesn't state he is a conspiracy theorist, but the implication that he has been supporting some of these theories is clear (otherwise, why would he be talked about in an article about the web sleuths trying to prove her innocent?) and so I don't see anything inherently incorrect about it stating "...supported by some individuals such as retired statistician Richard Gill". Yes that Dutch source might give Gill's views a thought, but it's an interview with him, so it's bound to!

It seems to me that the point of the Telegraph article How internet sleuths are already trying to prove Lucy Letby innocent is less to report about how there are genuine concerns about the verdict, and more so to highlight the perhaps concerning rise in true crime speculation about these sort of cases - "The reaction to the Letby trial has parallels with the modern obsession with true crime. These podcasts and TV series often share a mission to save those who they feel are wrongfully accused – they have won devoted followings of people who are grimly fascinated by these stories, and the lines between entertainment and public interest are blurred". This is in fitting with what the New Statesman reported, that this sort of content should "worry us all" and "The Letby case has demonstrated a trend of people believing – despite having zero expertise – that their personal opinions on a stranger’s innocence, guilt or appropriate punishment are relevant". It seems to me that the main point of this coverage is to document the increasing rise of internet theories, especially in the aftermath of the Nicola Bulley case, rather than give them a genuine platform. So it would seem very dubious of us and in my view uncalled for to use them for that purpose.

As such it would seem more appropriate in my view for at least the first paragraph of that section be put in a new section titled something like "Internet theories" or "True crime coverage". In all honesty the amount of coverage in reliable sources questioning her conviction - in comparison to the very large coverage of the case in general - is really very small if not non-existent, so having a section which is 50-50 on whether she is guilty or not would really be uncalled for in my view. So removing the overall apparently undue section about "doubt about conviction" would seem fitting anyway and may well solve this issue of it apparently looking non-neutral by not giving "both sides". Furthermore, this seems especially poignant since Letby apparently hasn't even decided whether she will appeal anyway - Mr Gill himself above states that "these developments are not for Wikipedia right now, but may become relevant".

Also just a minor thing - this is not a WP:BLP of Mr Gill himself. Structuralists (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph does not say that Gill is supporting conspiracy theorists and internet sleuths, or that he is one. That may be your interpretation of that source, however the source does not say that. The source, in fact, doesn't even use the phrase "conspiracy theorists", and it only uses "internet sleuths" in the headline (see WP:HEADLINES, so not reliable). The New Statesman piece has no relevance to this.

WP:BLP is a policy, and it applies everywhere, including talk pages. If you're going to edit about living people, I'd suggest that you read through the policy.

Currently, I think that section constitutes a WP:BLP violation. Either you write about the people in that section fairly, using impartial language, and include the good, bad and neutral things that sources write about them, or alternatively, don't include any information about those people if you don't think you can do that. I think that including a brief description of what Gill and Neil Mackenzie have said, and related information, is fine - it does constitute only a small amount of the coverage of this case, so a brief mention seems appropriate. However, simply removing the information about living people in that section would be an improvement if it makes that section comply with WP:BLP. Tristario (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like to point out that now at least two of the families of babies have spoken out saying they believe that Lucy is innocent and that colleague nurses are now speaking out saying the same, also Lucy's closest friend has spoken out. These people are not conspiracy theorists. The "theory" that the "gang of four" deliberately targeted Lucy to cover up their own mistakes is supported by one of them actually recently saying "when the RCPCH report came out, we. knew it was her or us which was going to lose their jobs", or words to that effect. Richard Gill (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Type of inquiry

"The need for a public inquiry was a view echoed by, among others, Sir Robert Buckland, former Secretary of State for Justice, Samantha Dixon, MP for the City of Chester, Steve Brine, chair of the House of Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee, and Sir Keir Starmer, Leader of the Opposition."

I think that this should be "The need for a statutory inquiry... " S C Cheese (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Changed from public to statutory. S C Cheese (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Doubt about conviction

Snugglewasp (talk · contribs) removed section "Doubt about conviction" on grounds of WP:UNDUE. I disagree. The five sources in question are:

• Herald Scotland
• Daily Telegraph
• New Statesman
• Independent
• The Times

I believe the first three are secondary sources, not WP:PRIMARYNEWS. The last two are arguably WP:PRIMARYNEWS, but I think statements that some of her colleagues don't believe her guilt and some do is not WP:UNDUE.

N.B. I suggest that Gill110951 (talk · contribs) doesn't participate in this discussion, since it is partly about whether to mention him on the article page. cagliost (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not interested in whether or not my name turns up on the Lucy Letby article page in the near future, and of course I do not wish to influence you guys on that matter in any way. Right now I’m just one of a big network of nutty conspirators. Some time, if and when Lucy has been exonerated, our story will be part of the big picture! In the meantime Wikipedia editors must do their work following Wikipedia principles. Richard Gill (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The Herald article literally describes those doubting the conviction as "a fringe movement of amateur sleuths". What more evidence of WP:FRINGE do you want? Snugglewasp (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a typical journalistic generalisation rather than evidence of anything. It goes on to describe some compelling similarities with other cases where convictions were overturned. As that discussion is covered in several reliable sources I support its inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The Herald article describes some of those doubting the conviction as "a fringe movement of amateur sleuths", but goes on to detail the arguments of defence barrister Ben Myers KC and Prof Richard D. Gill (as well as listing his relevant qualifications). Not amateurs. cagliost (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, the existence of a campaign to free Letby which has been covered in reliable sources is surely worthy of inclusion, regardless of its arguments? cagliost (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It depends - if there is a consistent, notable amount of neutral coverage about a campaign then yes, it could be mentioned in the article. However, editors should in my view be careful not to cross the line into promotion or allowing undue recognition of these theories. In the previous talk page discussion Talk:Lucy Letby#Sarrita Adams it was concluded that it would be better, on BLP grounds, to not include information about named individuals if it can't be done so neutrally, and so contentious information on Richard Gill and Sarrita Adams was removed. I agree. Especially with Gill, above, saying he is not bothered about having himself discussed on the article anyway.

In terms of the other content, saying that the Herald's description is merely "a typical journalistic generalisation" and so should be ignored does not seem appropriate. The sentiments on these views being fringe theories is also referred to by The Telegraph, who describe them as being largely conspiracy theories promoted by web sleuths, adding "the Letby case illustrates how often the theories that emerge are on the fringe between campaigning and conspiracy". The existing version of the article as it stands also includes a reference to the New Statesman article which exists to criticise the "rise of social media sleuthing and content creation" and, as stated, says "The Letby case has demonstrated a trend of people believing – despite having zero expertise – that their personal opinions on a stranger’s innocence, guilt or appropriate punishment are relevant". To suggest that we should ignore their very clear conclusions that these are WP:FRINGE theories would be bizarre in the least, we can't just exclude their comments on these being fringe theories because we don't like or agree with their journalistic tone! In any case, the New Statesman, Telegraph and Herald provide views from across the political spectrum, yet all notably are in consensus here that these views are peripheral theories. This gives this conclusion wider credence.

I am also concerned with the OP's listing of the articles of The Times and New Statesman as somehow demonstrating wider coverage of scepticism of Letby's conviction! The Times article literally is on the opposite subject - discussing one person saying she thinks Letby is guilty. The New Statesman mentions people questioning the conviction only briefly (it is not the main subject of the article), and even then mentions it only to criticise them. It seems to me likely that the editor in question, having no access to these paywalled articles, has assumed their wider contents, without actually seeing what they actually say. So that leaves only really three reliable sources from the list which actually discuss people questioning Letby's conviction. Three. I note how WP:UNDUE states "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all", and - indeed as other editors have similarly observed - the coverage in these two or three reliable sources questioning Letby's conviction in comparison to the mass of coverage about her guilt shows how much of a minority these views of Letby's innocence really are. The inclusion of an entire devoted section about "doubt about her conviction" therefore seems very, very disproportionate. Snugglewasp (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)