New Yorker magazine alert thread

they didn't actually use directly use statistical evidence in the trial, but historically when stats have been directly misused at trial (rather than just forming the foundation for suspecting someone like they did here - thinking that it was impossible for all the deaths to be a coincidence because that would be too unlikely) they've usually just had some 'expert witness' say some bullshit that sounds convincing to the jurors, not anything rigorous.

The article points out that the deaths could not be fully explained as proven murders. They couldn't prove the babies were injected with air or insulin. But from the other perspective, they also couldn't prove why these babies died with conditions consistent with those explanations if those weren't the causes.

this is simply not serious thinking

fwiw, it wasn't unserious. I thought boxedboy made good points about cherry picking facts and the possibility of a long-form media piece with the prestige of the New Yorker placing a case in a somewhat false light, especially when inferences are being drawn based on context collapse and hearsay within hearsay. The jury is presumed to have a sacred role in making first-hand assessments of the credibility of the witnesses and defendants using impressions based on body language, having seen the totality of the cases presented. It doesn't negate the possibility of having ineffective assistance of counsel (a basis for overturning verdicts in the US system, if the ineffectiveness prejudices the outcome), or the wrong outcome in this case, but I think it's perfectly fair and not "unserious" to hear perspectives of from people who followed other same press coverage and hear them state they they find other conclusions "wild" so they can be discussed here. I appreciated those posts.

Sorry for the late reply, and feel free to rip this apart, but I think you thought it was important to read the entire New Yorker piece on Hasan Minhaj by Claire Malone before drawing conclusions. I took away the implication you found Malone's piece fair because of its factual accuracy. I think that may have been the case, but I think it's important to look at what's cherry-picked or omitted and why. However, my perspective was that piece suffered imo from what I would call placing a person in a "false light." I kept asking as I read through that piece why she had undertaken the task of fact-checking his entire life, which seem to have been done remorselessly and with blinkers on as to the demeaning prejudices Minhaj had experienced his entire life living in the US. The entire takedown seemed to have been predicated on a single line asserting that audiences cannot distinguish between a comedian in his stand-up role exaggerating his life experiences to make a humorous point, and whether that comedian would be trustworthy in a newscaster role to host a comedy news show along the lines of the Daily Show. I didn't agree with that simple assertion. I believe audiences of the Daily Show are not so simple they needed a stand up bit from a potential host to be fact checked, and I found it a rather vicious example of tone policing from a person who has probably never experienced what Minhaj has lived through. It cost Hasan Minhaj the Daily Show gig without a doubt and to put the subject's "truths" in quotes in the headline was imo a level of elitist punching down that has made me dislike the New Yorker ever since.

no, it is entirely unserious, and the perspectives of people who follow the trial through the tabloids are entirely undeserving of consideration. that they live in a society where basic defendant rights are neither legally enshrined nor prioritized by the populace aren’t my concern.

the minhaj comparison, essentially a tabloid article having nothing to do with defendant rights, is apt in ways you may not appreciate unfortunately!

comparing the court of public opinion to a criminal trial in which a likely legally innocent person is sent away for life… a time for reflection perhaps

any time you have to straw man a person's point to win your argument, you've lost the argument.

your argument really was that vapid

I’m trying to understand what on earth the minhaj case has to do with a murder case and I’m struggling to come up with something other than an obsession with tabloid fodder. could you elaborate?

New Yorker stories in both cases, I guess

indeed

I guess if you live in a country where reporting like this is so unusual it would seem to make sense. I’ve never been to the U.K. (though I hope to someday!), but it reminds me of folks I met in thailand when I lived there tens years ago or so. the fealty to institutions is admirable in a sense but very foreign to me!

a bit sad that those who should know better would line up like this to demonize a working-class woman working extra hours in a broken, male-dominated system, but ingrained misogyny and class discrimination runs deep even in the U.K. I guess

the (male) doctors in charge said she must have done something bad and so it is

It doesn't negate the possibility of having ineffective assistance of counsel (a basis for overturning verdicts in the US system, if the ineffectiveness prejudices the outcome), or the wrong outcome in this case

could you summarize your posts in this thread then? other than dogged defending of a clearly underinformed person I’m confused

there was also something about a celebrity comic I’m still unclear about

did piers morgan have a special on this recently?

a bit sad that those who should know better would line up like this to demonize a working-class woman working extra hours in a broken, male-dominated system, but ingrained misogyny and class discrimination runs deep even in the U.K. I guess

― brony james (k3vin k.), Monday, 20 May 2024 bookmarkflaglink

That's not my read on boxedjoy's posting at all. I think almost everyone here (and certainly UK posters) can see that class and gender dynamic.

that was a teasing retort to the left field minhaj non-sequitur

Ok not read it.

I would hope Letby can get a better defence team for the upcoming trial and that some of the defects in the medical evidence as highlighted in the piece might come up.

Beyond that I am amazed at the certainty many of you have of her innocence. This is just one piece that has possibly left things out and highlighted others to fit another narrative.

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.