Talk:Lucy Letby

Doubts section

I've edited this to deal with some of the problems that have cropped up and tidied up some of the order.

Regardless of what you think about this case, when there are numerous expert voices on record as having doubts, it is highly contentious to not include the majority of those voices and to open up the section on doubts with some weasel words such as 'speculative theories' and 'amateur investigators'. It is frankly embarrassingly slanted and I can see there's been some discussion on this before.

So, I'm proposing this: Let's start this section with some on the record quotes from named institutions and experts quotes in reliable sources who are expressing doubts. We can keep the stuff about LL's friends and 'amateur theories, but let's move it further down the section.

If anyone has a problem with any of this, please add your problems here. Do not simply delete everything just because you don't agree with it. This is NPOV page and has a lot of traffic and adding more reliable links should be a priority.

After editing this by adding quotes from a manner of reliable sources, User:HouseplantHobbyist has reverted all the changes and removed all the new sources that were added. I don't feel this is in good faith and invite other editors to examine this.

My suggestion for the Doubts section are below. Will listen to editors here on this and then add it to the main article after a discussion:

:The evidence convicting Letby was circumstantial in that there was no direct witness of her committing the crimes and neither did she confess guilt. The use of circumstantial statistical analysis by the prosecution has attracted criticism from various experts on statistics. In July 2024, the Royal Statistical Society issued a statement that they were 'aware of concerns raised by some RSS members and the wider statistical community' and welcomed an investigation. One of the key pieces of evidence was a chart that showed Letby had been present for a number of deaths on the neo-natal unit. However the chart omitted deaths that has occurred when Letby had not been present. Professor John O’Quigley, from UCL who was quoted as saying “In my opinion there was nothing out of the ordinary statistically in the spike in deaths, and all the shift chart shows is that when Letby was on duty, Letby was on duty.” :Phil Hammond, writing in Private Eye as 'MD', also drew attention to many problems with the conviction and also questioned statistical errors, for example while deaths on the ward did go down after Letby's removal, this also coincided with the unit itself being downgraded and thus not being allowed to deal with babies needing intensive care. Hammond states 'This alone could account for the reduction in harm'. :Medical experts have questioned the veracity of the prosecution's witness. Dr Svilena Dimitrova, an NHS consultant neonatologist who made an official complaint to the General Medical Council (GMC), was quoted as saying "“the theories proposed in court were not plausible and the prosecution was full of medical inaccuracies. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say Letby was innocent, but I can see no proof of guilt”[136] Gumlau (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work in improving this section Gumlau. As you have split it into several subsections , I have placed the topic in its own section. I think that is due, as these articles have become forthright in the UK media. There are a couple of other historic issues with the section that previously I was in favour of removing, but I think perhaps they are better now and more inline with NPOV thanks to your reordering. I will have a read through over the weekend and perhaps make some edits. PerSeAnd (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Gumlau (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think these changes are much-needed, and a number of editors have been repeatedly saying as much over the last days and weeks. HouseplantHobbyist has been consistently reverting all such changes while citing consensus, which seems dubious to me; the consensus in fact appears to be on the opposite side, with HH standing alone, and it's starting to get into WP:OWN territory. I would like to see some version of your edits implemented.— Moriwen (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding to this, I've just had to revert yet another tendentious deletion/edit by HouseplantHobbyist who deleted the entire paragraph with Dimitrova arguing that "the Guardian article already has enough weight". This is a frankly terrible reason to remove an expert opinion. Relevant information is relevant information, and if an article supplies it, then we use it. End of.

Furthermore, they also have attempted to do what they call a "balance" but this has made the Doubts section even more lopsided. What we should have is a section by section outline of each of the major arguments made by doubters (e.g. statistical flaws, the witness credibility, etc). Instead what HouseplantHobbyist is doing is removing the specific arguments made and instead making the section not a doubt section, but a doubt the doubters section. They also, for some unexplained reason, rewrote the section with Hammond to remove the argument made about the Unit downgrading completly and instead replaced it with a quote that says it's difficult to ascertain guilt. This is getting ridiculous now, and we're building up a case as the strange behaviour going on here. Gumlau (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've restored it to the 20:02, 29 July version, except with your paragraph move. Do check if I've lost anything else you did while those reverts were going on. HouseplantHobbyist is currently blocked for edit-warring. NebY (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to NebY, PerSeAnd, Gumlau, Moriwen ! The text is much better now. But further polishing is possible. Under "Criticism of witnesses" it says "The New Yorker article also questioned", but this article is first mentioned in "Staff and infrastructure issues". The sentence with "friends and colleagues" occurs twice. More importantly, there is no subsection "Evidence" (directly after "Letby's plea") yet, that states that there is no direct evidence (and possibly discusses the indirect evidence, other than the statistical). One might also add a subsection "Similar cases" and refer to Lucia de Berk and similar cases. Nhart129 (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Private Eye article

User:HouseplantHobbyist On July 24 you reverted the following paragraph that I had just added, with the simple note "'Is Private Eye a reliable source? In any case, that is a disproportionate amount of space for one article'".

In Private Eye, physician and medical commentator Phil Hammond writes (under his usual pseudonym M.D.) that many experts doubt the fairness of the trial, citing numerous problems with the statistical analysis of the deaths, as well as how expert witness participate in medical negligence trials. He states: "MD can make no judgement either way as to the guilt or innocence of Lucy Letby, but the way expert witnesses are used – or not used – in criminal trials with complex and uncertain science is simply not fit for purpose and risks miscarriages of justice. It should be mandatory for the jury to hear expert witnesses from both sides or – better still – it should be a duty of, say the Royal Colleges or Royal Statistical Society to provide a team of the best, current expert witnesses on behalf of the court, not paid or employed by one side or the other. This is vital for justice to be done and to be seen being done."

To address your first point, Private Eye has had an excellent reputation for investigative journalism for decades, for example doing more than almost any other publication to draw attention to the British Post Office scandal. As to the second point, regarding length, I first wanted to highlight another commentator concerned about flawed statistical reasoning. But more notable (because of the potential to change the legal system) are Hammond's recommendations on expert witness participation in trials based on the one-sided way they had participated in the Letby case. Please respond with your updated view on this paragraph, given this new information. Hotlorp (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

See here [1] for an example on why Private Eye as a reliable source in a biography of living person article is not really considered sufficient without corroboration from another source. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the issues with Private Eye as given in that topic. They have a history of saying or insinuating not so nice things about politicians and other public figures, often with little or no evidence, in their opinion pieces, although they often turn out to be correct. It is therefore wise to avoid it when reporting facts about the subject in a BLP. Their investigative journalism, of which this article is an example, is considered excellent.

This article is written by a respected doctor and medical commentator, who has spoken to experts as part of his investigation, and he reports those concerns. It is relevant to this section.

The contents are corroborated by the various other investigative pieces we mention, so I’m not sure why you say it should not be given as the only source.

I do agree that the paragraph was too long, perhaps you could try and rewrite a more succinct version User:Hotlorp? PerSeAnd (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

PerSeAnd, we have to follow long-established guidelines. The guidelines I linked to says about Private Eye: "you will need to use WP:ATT and be prepared to back your edits - the onus will be on you to achieve consensus for inclusion of anything contentious. Don't use the Eye for contentious WP:BLP material either, please. When in doubt, two sources are better than one, and discuss on Talk first". Citing that source for the statement "many experts doubt the fairness of the trial, citing numerous problems with the statistical analysis of the deaths, as well as how expert witness participate in medical negligence trials" would be a major issue, as it would be to state his opinion as fact, and doing this by citing one disputed source. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

What you have linked to is a discussion on Private Eye as a source, not a Wikipedia guideline. It is only the view of those editors who replied to that one page.

Unfortunately, I have to assume you are being disingenuous because you know that the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list exists, having very recently provided a link to support your position on The Mirror.

I have to ask, if you are so keen to argue against this article, on what basis do you believe the reference from Spiked magazine that you added should remain? PerSeAnd (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• No PerSeAnd, you do not "have to assume you are being disingenuous", what you have to do as an editor is the opposite, as WP:AGF outlines you must assume good faith. And you are also not understanding the link to the guidelines on Private Eye that I provided, which literally come from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial which you are somehow accusing me of misunderstanding. The page specifically outlines, under WP:RSPMISSING, that if your source is not on the list then you can search the archive of the reliable source noticeboard for previous discussions on the source you are looking for. That is how you find the specific reliable source discussion about Private Eye, which set out the advice that I've provided. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on the matter of Private Eye's integrity in investigative journalism. On length, two-thirds of it is the quote from Hammond on the matter of one-sidedness of the expert witnesses, which feels to me important to restate fully and without distortion, rather than summarize, since the article is not online [Edit: Private Eye published the article on July 31]. Nevertheless if it goes live and someone else shortens it, I am unlikely to object. Hotlorp (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I still disagree somewhat regarding length, I do think the quote at least could be shortened and not miss the point. However, I agree with your point that it should be included in some form. As we appear to have consensus on that, I think you could reinstate it as it was and either myself or another editor can try and reduce it afterwards. PerSeAnd (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

No PerSeAnd, there is not a "consensus on that". Consensus does not work by two editors together agreeing to ignore a third. There is no consensus to restore the content, and WP:ONUS outlines that "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Restoring the disputed content in full in the hope that "myself or another editor can try and reduce it afterwards" is not the way it works. Given the disputed nature of Private Eye as a source then a much shorter reference to the article would still only be acceptable if Hammond's views were corroborated in other undisputed, perennial sources. Until that is the case, then I do not support the inclusion of the content in any form. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You said “we have to follow long-established guidelines. The guidelines I linked to says about Private Eye…”

That is not a candid response, you fail to mention that Private Eye is missing from the list that provides actual guidance on how we should handle sources. It is not a policy that we have to follow as you claim. I maintain that your comment was disingenuous.

In any case, I have pointed out that you misunderstand the issues with the Eye. It may not be a reliable source for facts about a living person, but that is not what it is being used to support. Its investigative journalism is considered excellent, as noted in your source, and Hammond is an expert who references other experts in his writing. I therefore believe it’s inclusion is justified. It is actually three to one, as a third editor restored the section. Once again, you are the sole editor blocking a change that multiple editors believe should be made and claim that consensus has not been reached. I remind you that editing Wikipedia is a collaborative process, you should be finding compromise on those points that you disagree with but where you remain in the minority, not attempting to block edits entirely. PerSeAnd (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not ever say that it was a 'policy', I said it was guidelines, which it is as the 'actual guidance' on how we should handle Private Eye is given in that reliable sources noticeboard discussion that I linked for you. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources clearly outlines that "A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability has not been the subject of serious questioning yet. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

I am not 'blocking a change', nor am I preventing a consensus being reached. I have said that the Private Eye sentiments could well be included in a shorter form if and when other, less-disputed reliable sources can be found that directly corroborate them. If those sources don't exist yet, they might in the future, there just may need to be a wait. But in the meantime objecting to the inclusion of disputed content that does not seem to follow core guidelines and policy is not unreasonable. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

So we cannot assume that the Private Eye is any more or less reliable than sources on the list. You said that this is guidance we “must” follow, that implies it is a firm rule, which it is not.

In any case, your concerns have been addressed. This particular article is an investigative piece, for which the Eye is a reputable source, written by an expert, supported by the opinion of other experts, and is being used as a source for Hammond’s opinion on a subject, not as a reference of fact. The content of the article is supported in large by the other investigative pieces we reference from The New Yorker, The Guardian, and The Daily Telegraph.

I agree it could be cut down, but restoring as is and reducing later would be in line with the Wikipedia:Bold-refine process. PerSeAnd (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

We can't assume from the absence of Private Eye from the list that it is any more or less reliable than sources on the list. That's why we instead need to look at the guidelines on that particular source on the reliable source noticeboard instead. And those guidelines clearly indicate the lack of consensus among esteemed editors that Private Eye can be included as a source on it's own for disputed content. So no, my concerns certainly have not been 'addressed'. The New Yorker, The Guardian and The Telegraph all have entries on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources outlining a clear consensus that those sources are generally reliable as sources on their own. That's why there's no problems with the content already included sourced to those articles. The discussions on Private Eye on the reliable source noticeboard shows it does not have the same approval.

WP:ONUS outlines that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Until this consensus is reached, 'restoring it and reducing it later' is not permitted. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You say that your concerns have not been addressed, yet you fail to address most of the points raised. The exception, perhaps - this is not entirely clear, that the other articles do support the Eye article. But that would be a pivot from your previous position that you would be happy with its inclusion if it were supported.

Please can you address the points raised in a substantial manner, I do not agree that the guidelines you have provided should exclude this article and have explained this in detail. PerSeAnd (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

PerSeAnd, I am not required to negotiate with you. You know full well that I object to the inclusion of that content. You disagree, as is your right, but respectfully, sometimes users have to agree to disagree. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Negotiate with me? If by that you mean discuss with me, then yes - that is something that I would expect, considering you have raised objections to this articles inclusion, and we have addressed those arguments. You keep ignoring those counter arguments to focus on issues surrounding the practicalities of the reliable/perennial sources list. PerSeAnd (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

PerSeAnd, Wikipedia:Verifiability, specifically WP:SOURCE, are wider site policies. I'm not going to agree to the inclusion of content if I don't think it is in keeping with that policy. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You need to address the points raised, and make arguments about how policies would not be met. Saying you disagree, and stating that policies exist is not adequate. PerSeAnd (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It is in your apprehension that I have not made arguments about how policies have not been met. You just saying that doesn't mean it's so. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The talk page discussion is there for all to see. I raised issue with your interpretation of the discussion you linked, and provided what I believe to be solid arguments for the article’s inclusion. You have not addressed my points, you continue to obfuscate and maintain that we do not have consensus, although I now see that another editor has attempted to add in this reference so your position is increasingly untenable. You haven’t provided any detail on how you feel policies or guidelines might not be met, if you can’t do so then we should add in this reference. PerSeAnd (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to say that today Private Eye published Phil Hammond’s article online. I have edited the link in the reference to point to it. Hotlorp (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

He has also released a second article in the last edition that could be worth adding. PerSeAnd (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Incomplete information - the missing info must be on the record somewhere

In several places in the article, I stumbled over some gaps in the information provided. I am not entering into the dispute about Letby's guilt but seeking clarity.

section Initial investigations

The "board" is mentioned 4 times without any clue as to what board this is. Clearly it's some important part of the management structure. On first occurrence, please insert the explicit name of the board.

Same section, paragraph "In September 2016",

Letby's grievance was upheld in January 2017. Did she return to work in the neonatal unit in that month? Alternatively is this what is being talked about in the following paragraph "Letby due to return work on 3 May 2017". That seems like a long time to elapse without explanation.

Section 2023 trial

Did Letby continue to work in the neonatal unit while she was on bail?

Section Evidence

This sentence needs attention "Two days later she had a heated text exchange with a colleague over her manager refusing to let her go back onto the intensive care ward, and the next day, Baby C died". So was she on shift when Baby C died (despite the manager's refusal) or not (irrelevant to the death of Baby C maybe)? JRGp (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. These are good points. On the board, aren't we just talking about the hospital board? We can make it explicit I suppose. On the last point, she was on shift but assigned to a different baby when Baby C fell ill. She was suspended from the unit in 2016, and thereafter worked in the risk and safety office. She did not return to the unit after her grievance was upheld. She did not work while on bail. Fixing this with sources is certainly possible, and thanks for pointing out the issues. There remains a lack of secondary sources to work from, and much of this article was piece together from trial reports - not ideal. I note that there is a forthcoming book [2] that may allow for a substantial rewrite, although as our existing best secondary source is a documentary by the same people, this will still need careful handling. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I've made some changes to try to address these points. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Drafting a new RFC - continued

@Sirfurboy and I looked at four different options that we might put to the Wikipedia community in a new Request For Comment, permutations of whether to describe Letby in the first sentence as a murderer or convicted of murder, and whether or not that sentence should describe her as a serial killer. Those four options are in rough:

A: serial killer and former nurse who murdered and attempted / serial killer who while a nurse murdered and attempted...

B: former nurse who murdered and attempted

C: former nurse convicted of murdering and attempting

D: former nurse convicted of serial murder and attempted murder

The previous RFC laid the options out as fully-formed sentences. Do we need to do that again or would it be enough (maybe even clearer, in a way) to list them as above? In which case, should it be with only one version in (A)?

Other procedural notes: RFC opening statements must be neutral and brief, per WP:RFCBRIEF. I would, after posing the question: "Should the first sentence of Lucy Letby describe her as a .... ", close that as the opening request for comment and then, in comments below, explain that since the last RFC, Letby's requests for permission to appeal have been rejected; she has been retried on one charge of murder and convicted; doubts have been published in the US and (following the lifting of some reporting restrictions) in the UK; our article now includes material on those doubts; editors who have seen those publications have sought to change the lead sentence to include "convicted of". I would notify participants in the previous RFC, and relevant projects as usual, and it would be listed automatically in various places.

So, do we need to lay out the options in full sentences, or otherwise improve the request so that the community can have a good discussion and as clear and stable an outcome as possible? NebY (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for digging this out. I think I agree that not having full sentences might be better. It would be easy to create 4 samples, but last time I think some people became distracted by words that were never meant to be under discussion, so having it quite clear what the 4 options are should be fine. I would contest that the status quo should be option A, and marked as such, but otherwise would be happy with this. But let's see what others think. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Use of "almost died" in parts sourced with BBC panorama

> "Between March and June 2016 another three babies almost died while under Letby's care"

> "the next day another baby almost died under Letby's care"

The panorama episode uses "almost died" (i.e. did not die) in it's own voice in both the timestamps used, it's not the episode citing another source itself (e.g. a medical professional or legal expert). Ought these either be changed to make clear it's BBC panorama claiming this, or that the incidents were characterized as "almost died"? As really "Almost died" (again, i.e. did not die) is nebulous/weasel on panorama's end, but it's just treated as fact in the article, despite panorama being basically the tabloid of documentaries, so not really a good source for that kind of statement.

(I'm not making the arguement, could one also make the arguement WP:WEASEL? not sure) Storsed (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

What is the issue and what steps have been taken to resolve it? It looks like the account accused of edit warring in the edit before the neutrality tag was placed by User:Sirfurboy has been suspended. Kire1975 (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve removed the tag, it was there as there was discussion on the inclusion of Letby maintaining her innocence, which has now been resolved. PerSeAnd (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)