My misgivings regarding Lucy Letby's alleged guilt

The Wikipedia page on Lucy Letby

First of all, let me say at the outset that I'm really loath to comment on whether I think she's guilty or not since I'm simply not knowledgeable enough about the evidence, especially the medical evidence. But I'll admit that I feel she's likely innocent. Indeed, on Facebook on the 4th October 2021 (4.5 years ago) I said "I'm wondering if she's guilty" (here). And from everything I’ve learnt about this case since then, my doubts have only grown. Admittedly, my opinion doesn't mean much since I lack the knowledge and expertise for my opinion to mean much (though that doesn't stop others making definitive judgements on either side who seem equally, if not less, knowledgeable than me).

I'll just put down a few things I said about this case on Facebook over the past 2 to 3 years or so.

Those Notes

What kind of nurse, after all, would commit to paper heinous statements such as, ‘I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough’, other than a cold-blooded perpetrator of infanticide?

That is certainly how the police and crown prosecution lawyers saw them, not to mention a great swathe of the public, for whom these damning words effectively clinched the case against Letby. 
From here.

This is absurd. The alleged confessions make perfect sense if she was extremely distraught at her caring abilities being questioned. For she might be questioning herself, wondering if she really was to blame at some level. Essentially it sounds like she may have been at breaking point and scribbling down notes was to relieve the tension and feelings of distress she was harbouring. Maybe kind of convincing herself that she was to blame for their deaths?

But not as a deliberate act! For one thing, would a serial murderer remonstrate with herself for murdering? But, more importantly, my above interpretation is perfectly consistent with her note saying she's done nothing wrong, whereas as this protestation of innocence cannot be reconciled if she were guilty. Also, wasn't she given some advice by professionals to write down notes as a way of dealing with extreme stress with this whole situation?

Similarly:

Much was made of her apparent confession, “I am evil, I did this” scrawled on scraps of paper.

On first look, it certainly looked like evidence of a troubled mind, but on closer inspection others have since suggested, this could easily be an expression of a deterioration of mental health and self-loathing at the association with the deaths of the babies and the increasing suspicions of doctors who worked with her. 
From here.

Yes. This is exactly what I thought. Let's suppose she's guilty. If she was in a normal state of mind, would she really scribble down her guilt on a piece of paper that potentially could be discovered?

No, writing down “I am evil, I did this” suggests to me that she was in a highly fragile and emotional charged state of mind, which sits uneasily with premeditated murder.

But suppose she is innocent? Then such an emotional state of mind might suggest she is blaming herself for a perceived neglect that led to the death of one or more babies.

And again about the notes, this time from someone who thinks she's guilty:

Of course, her supporters will direct you to some of the lines that could be interpreted as indicators of innocence: “I haven’t done anything wrong,” for example. And “Why me?” but these weren’t the ones that resonated most deeply with the original jury who had all the other evidence before them". From here

These were private scribblings weren't they? Not meant for anyone else's eyes? So if she did deliberately kill a number of babies, why would she put “I haven’t done anything wrong”?

And what does he mean could be interpreted as indicators of innocence? It's a straightforward assertion by her of her innocence, which were only ever meant to be seen by her. And why wouldn't such a declaration of her innocence resonate with the jury? If she really is guilty I surmise all the other evidence must be extraordinarily compelling.

Her lack of emotion

Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC ... [asked] her why she only cried when talking about herself, and not when mentioning the babies. From here.

According to many people, her emotionless reactions to the death of the babies in court strongly suggests her guilt. Which I find preposterous. I rather think the prospect of spending the rest of her life in prison might be more on her mind! Whatever one's conclusion about the safety of her conviction, these emotionless reactions do not remotely suggest her guilt. In court, she will have been numb with shock. And people will differ in how they react to strangers dying.

Regarding what the prosecutor, Nick Johnson KC, said. Um… now that's a difficult one... Er... perhaps the realisation that she'll spend the rest of her life in captivity? And about 150,000 people die every day, including many babies. Would that fact really so overwhelm us so as to make us forget that our lives are effectively over if we were in a similar situation?

And some of those that knew Letby claim that Letby could be very emotional. From the same link:

 [T]he lead nurse for urgent care Karen Rees became one of Letby’s most trusted confidantes. She later said: “I witnessed her in complete distress, crying and swearing her innocence.

From another link: 

 She was crying … very distressed every time we met her, saying: ‘Why is this happening to me?’,” she said. “She kept saying to me: ‘I am not going to let them drive me out of the job that I love. I worked hard. I’ve done nothing wrong.’ That’s what she kept repeating to me. It was harrowing. From here.

 

She might well be guilty, I have no idea not having examined the evidence. But the reasons why many people appear to think she's guilty — those notes, her lack of emotional empathy when strangers die — are simply ludicrous.

Irrational Gamers

Apparently I'm a fan of "AI slop" and a "gooner" etc according to numerous young men on Threads (and unlike I imagined, "gooner" isn't being used in the normal sense of an Arsenal supporter, but some other sense I've never heard of). These people are all being seriously ridiculous and no matter how many of them I respond to and point out how ludicrous they are, there's seemingly an infinite number of them piling on. I've had to block from 15 to 20 of them. 

So they're all claiming that this graphical enhancement called DLSS 5 is "AI slop". That it's a travesty (though they didn't use that word). In fact their hostility to this DLSS 5 is bordering on deranged.  

It was just an offhand post I made saying that this computer game character (Grace in Resident Evil Requiem, see the image below or see 1m 34s onwards on the video featured here) looks much better.  OK, they don't agree. But so what? Why is this so important? Who the heck cares what they like or dislike, and why should they be bothered about my opinion on such a boring subject?

Moreover, these people are not using the phrase "AI slop" in its correct sense. It refers to the fact the net is being deluged with fake images and videos where people are being fooled into thinking they are genuine. Or at least meaningless AI generated images. It does not mean merely enhancing graphics via generative AI where no deception is being perpetuated. Using it in this latter sense, in addition to the former, merely serves to dilute the term to effective vacuity. 

Edited to add:  I've just noticed that the comments underneath the article I linked to are almost all unremittingly hostile to this DLSS 5 too. I'm the only one that likes it, well, apart from the 2 reviewers in the video who love it. I find it bizarre that almost everyone thinks it makes the graphics worse.

This reminds me of a meme:

Yes, as with many other topics I'm in a very small minority!

My first ever novels

I've heard that there are people who say that when they were 6 years old they read novels intended for adults. This is in stark contrast to me as I'm not sure I could read at all at 6! And that wasn't a lack of desire on my part, though I'm not sure how much effort I put into learning to read. It seemed to me that reading was too difficult. Indeed, back then I viewed the ability to read as being almost magical. Just the fact that these marks on a piece of paper could mysteriously represent words and sentences. 

I did eventually learn to read, maybe when I was about 7. The first books I read were books like the Faraway Tree series and Wishing Chair series by Enid Blyton. I loved them to bits!  There's nothing I've ever read since that comes close... well, maybe the Narnia books when I was a bit older. But certainly nothing I've read as an adult. 

Which makes me think; how would a 6 year old get anything out of a novel intended for adults? And if they were sufficiently gifted to read novels for adults at 6 years old — in stark contrast to me — did this translate as being exceptionally gifted when they reached adulthood? I don't think there's much evidence for that?

Anyway, at about 7 or 8 I tried reading a novel intended for older children; namely "the Ragamuffin mystery", also by Enid Blyton. I didn't really understand much of it and certainly wasn't particularly engaged by it. Though in subsequent years I loved all the Blyton books for older children. But never as much as I enjoyed the Enchanted wood and Wishing Chair books.

At 11 or 12 years old, I finally read my first ever novel intended for adults — the day of the triffids. I was really intrigued by the idea of almost the whole world becoming totally blind overnight, and the sort of stuff I still really love reading. Indeed, I've read the day of the triffids a fair few times since my first reading. However, when I read it at 11/12 there were parts of it I didn't really understand. I can recall not really understanding the 2nd chapter! But now I understand it all, and it is brilliant!

The very last time

This guy (I read his novels) talks about doing things for the very last time and not realising that it's for the very last time. I also think about this sort of thing.  They'll be a very last time I'll make a post on here (possibly a short time before I die), a very last time that you, the reader, will read a post by me, and possibly in neither case we will  realise it was for the very last time. 

And, of course, sometimes we do realise it's for the very last time. Say you're attending a course and you come to the end of that last class and you know you'll never ever see most of the people you met there again.  And in this scenario people still say to me "I'll see you later", and I'm thinking, actually more likely than not we'll never see each other again!  Actually, I did point this out to this woman once as we were leaving the very last class, and she protested saying we will see each other again!  But we never did. It's funny (as in weird) thinking about such things. 

The Meta Ray-Ban Display

I read a New York Times article reviewing the Meta Ray-Ban Display smart glasses. The article is being negative, partially due to the fact that a few days ago there was a live demonstration where, unfortunately, not everything went according to plan. But it's interesting that Meta risked such a demonstration with the attendant dangers of glitches and bugs manifesting themselves. Indeed, this suggests to me that such glitches are relatively uncommon in these glasses, otherwise why risk it?

I confess I have no experience with smart glasses, nor virtual reality, nor augmented reality. Nor do I even use smartphones very much (mainly I use mine for phone calls and as a torch!) However, from my reading, these glasses seem to be a game-changer. Yes, there will be glitches and bugs, which might be expected with new technology.  So this failure of the live demonstration is not as big a deal as people are suggesting. 

Anyway, they have a hell of a lot of potential when the technology is refined and becomes cheaper.  They might even supplant smartphones! It may not be these glasses that become a runaway success, but something similar to them is likely to be.

Marilyn vos Savant

I read this very interesting article on Marilyn vos Savant who, at least at one point, held the world's highest recorded IQ. The article says:

When vos Savant politely responded to a reader’s inquiry on the Monty Hall Problem, a then-relatively-unknown probability puzzle, she never could’ve imagined what would unfold: though her answer was correct, she received over 10,000 letters, many from noted scholars and Ph.Ds, informing her that she was a hare-brained idiot.

What ensued for vos Savant was a nightmarish journey, rife with name-calling, gender-based assumptions, and academic persecution.

One of the more polite responses said:

You made a mistake, but look at the positive side. If all those Ph.D.’s were wrong, the country would be in some very serious trouble.

Everett Harman, Ph.D.

U.S. Army Research Institute

I do admit, though, that when I first read the problem I thought, how the hell can the answer be 2/3rds?? Until I realised the host wasn't picking one of the 2 remaining doors arbitrarily but specifically choosing the door with the goat behind it (assuming the initial choice by the contestant was incorrect).

 

Reaching out instead of contacting

Companies nowadays never seem to say, "thank you for contacting us" or similar. Instead, they say, "thank you for reaching out to us" with the phrase "reaching out to us" replacing the word "contact".

I do not approve of this. If one is contacting a company, quite often this will be to make a complaint about the company concerned.  Addressing the complaint by initially saying, "thank you for reaching out to us" seems to be a tactic to try to establish a touchy-feely rapport between themselves and their customers.

"Reaching out" rather than "contact" connotes that the person is asking for help, maybe even after a great deal of hesitancy on their parts e.g. someone feeling suicidal and wanting help. Hence, it's not appropriate phrase to use for when someone is complaining about how unethical or incompetent that company is!

If "reaching out" is used for all forms of contact, then "reaching out" eventually replaces "contact" and presumably if someone feels distressed for whatever reason, then getting this response "thanks for reaching out" will be that much less consoling.

But this "reaching out" replacing "contact" is part of the growing devaluation of the English language. 

Age progression of myself

Below on the left is a photo of me taken back in 1985. I uploaded that photo to ChatGPT and said to it "Generate an image of what this person is likely to look like in 40 years' time". The middle photo is the result! The photograph on the right is what I actually look like now 40 years hence (photo taken about a month ago). I'll leave others to judge the accuracy of this AI age progression process! 🤣

I note my alter ego in a parallel Universe still has my super short yellow shorts!

My understanding of "evidence" appears to differ from everyone else's.

My understanding of the word "evidence" seems to differ from almost everyone else's. I thought "evidence" meant any empirical data that increases the chance of a hypothesis or theory being true. Such evidence need not make a hypothesis likely. The evidence might, for example, increase the likelihood of a hypothesis being true from 1% to 2%.

I also specifically don't think arguments are evidence. Arguments are employed to reason something through, but they are not evidence as I conceive it.

Finally, evidence isn't just confined to scientific evidence. For example, any personal experiences of a phenomenon are evidence for its existence.

But, as I said, everyone else seems to employ a different conception of the word "evidence". They appear to think it means scientific proof, and paradoxically, that reasoning is evidence!

Is it a good idea to have regular health checks?

I read the following article:  Why men are so unhealthy - and what can be done.

It says:

"NHS health checks, which are offered every five years to those aged 40 to 74, are considered a crucial intervention when it comes to many of the diseases which are claiming the lives of men early. But fewer than four in 10 men take up the offer".

Is there any evidence these regular health checks extend life? It seems not. For example, a paper:

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

reports in its conclusion:

General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although they increased the number of new diagnoses.

On the other hand, regular health checks do worry people as each health check appointment approaches. Or on getting slightly askew test results, say in a blood test, but which never leads to any adverse consequences.

Also, it's interesting that there's evidence for an increase in diagnosis. Yet the mortality rates did not reduce to a statistically significant extent for those having such regular health checks. Over-diagnoses leading to unnecessary treatments, therefore?