Also you have to be very, very careful when looking at statistics and probability in this context. If you ask "what are the odds of Lucy Letby coincidentally being on shift for all of those deaths?" then you will get a very small number. But that's not the right question to ask - a more appropriate question would be "across the span of recent infant intensive care, what are the odds of a nurse somewhere in the country at some point coincidentally being on shift for a similar cluster of deaths." And the probability will be many orders of magnitude bigger given the timespan, number of wards and number of nurses. If anyone thinks she should be convicted solely on the basis of the "what are the odds?" point then they also presumably think every Euromillions winner should be prosecuted for frauding their ticket, as the odds of that person legitimately winning the jackpot are so small that they must have cheated.
At least another 35 collapses and 10 other deaths when she wasn't on shift were left out of the data they presented. One leading statistician said, "All the roster proves is that she was on shift when she was on shift". It's not only unsafe, but incredibly terrifying how any anyone could be declared guilty by a complete lack of basic scientific rigor.
According to Dr Mike Hall, her unused defence witness (a story in itself), the prosecution underplayed the seriousness of how sick most if not all of the babies were. Three of them were apparently premature and one weighed just 3lbs. They made a point of saying that once she was taken off her shifts the mortality rate dropped but failed to mention that at the same time the hospital was also discharged of its duties to take very sick babies, which ironically is admitting it's not best placed to do.
