Talk:Lucy Letby: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 17:56, 18 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lucy Letby article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lucy Letby. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Lucy Letby at the Reference desk.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

A news item involving Lucy Letby was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates:

Wikipedia

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Cheshire Mid‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hospitals Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

August 20 to 26, 2023

On 8 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Trial of Lucy Letby. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Reason for revert

I would like to know why my edits were reverted- especially the ones regarding the abnormally low C-Peptide results which proved (in a court of law) that two babies had been given exogenous insulin. I even added a source to my edit.

This wikipedia page is highly biased and undermines the credibility of wikipedia as a whole. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From some of the things you've said I'm inferring that you're not familiar with the doubts coming from experts about the convictions. You mentioned Science on Trial but that is one very minor part of the doubts, isn't regarded as expert and makes no appearance anywhere in this article.

That the blood test results prove insulin administration is strongly contested by people with highly relevant expertise. From WP:RSUW: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject and WP:NPOV: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

There are quite a few sources you could go to about the insulin doubts, but I recommend this article. You'll see that both the C-peptide being unusually low and the prosecution's inference about insulin administration are contested.

Regarding allegations that Letby falsified medical records, this is a simple matter of fact. Correct me if you know otherwise, but I think the allegations came from the lawyers, not witnesses. Therefore they do not consistute evidence. What does constitute evidence is the medical records which contained some inconsistencies. That's why I changed that. DominicRA (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AthenaEditsWiki and DominicRA, you have both exceeded the one revert rule on this page today. Please note carefully the warnings that are displayed when you edit this page. I'm not going to raise this at the edit warring noticeboard as I am sure it is inadvertent. I would suggest self reverting but as you have reverted each other, I can't see that will work, so suggest you both just take a break from the page for 24 hours. Talk page discussion should still be fine.

On the matter of this section: I did not revert the C-peptide text but I did revert the addition of a source to the lead. My edsum explained. Per WP:LEADCITE and WP:LEAD we have a clean lead that summarises sourced text in the main section. If information is not in the main, do not add it to the lead. Make sure the lead is written in summary style. Because the information in the main will be sourced, you don't need to repeat the citation in the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that people are reverting edits based on their opinions rather than facts. Also, there seems to be a lack of respect for the verdicts rendered by our courts of law and the experts who testified under oath in said courts. Those expert DID prove the test results showed insulin poisoning and the determination of our courts are fact until proven otherwise (in court). AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The falsification of medical records came from witnesses as well as lawyers. They are a fact. For example, in one case of murder by air embolus, Letby wrote in a medical note “peripheral access lose” when describing the resuscitation. Dr. Brearey had to amend this to specify that peripheral access was NOT lost. The significant is that is peripheral venous access had truly been lost, air embolism would be ruled out as a cause of death. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, her own testimony was ample evidence that she had indeed falsified medical records. You seem to be unaware, but testimony under oath during a trial IS evidence in of itself. She was forced to admit on the stand that medical notes had been changed, and that it was her handwriting. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admitting that notes were changed is not admitting that notes were falsified. It doesn't matter if you're personally persuaded that she falsified records; it's a contested claim so we don't state it as a fact. A jury verdict does not render every claim made by the prosecution automatically true. DominicRA (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested by whom please? Your definition of what is a contested claim seems to be your own personal opinion. By your definition, the evidence against any convicted criminal who denies their crimes could be labelled as 'contested'. That is now how it works. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of what is a contested claim seems to be your own personal opinion Where I've used the term elsewhere it's been because the claim is directly contested by non-fringe experts. It's true that I don't know if experts have explicitly disputed the record falsification claims. But here I'd advise you to read the summary of the RfC at the top of this page. Part of its determination involved establishing consensus that Letby's actual guilt is contested, and so shouldn't be stated as a fact. It wouldn't make sense to apply that standard to her guilt and then to just accept specific other claims made by the prosecution. If her guilt is contested, so should the record falsification be.

I expect that you'll probably be unhappy with the outcome of the RfC, but I'm afraid it can't be overruled or ignored by just an unhappy editor's disagreement (I've been there too). DominicRA (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Objective evidence of record falsification can exist independently from a consensus about her guilt. The experts you have defined, in your personal opinion, as non-fringe, have not contested that records were falsified and even if they were to do so, record falsification is not their realm of expertise so their opinion on such a matter would hold little weight. 2600:1700:840:8FC0:2DBE:5473:FE17:D52E (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus from the RfC classes them as non-fringe, not just me. If the safety of the convictions is not agreed upon, we obviously can't use the convictions themselves to assert particular prosecution claims as fact. Some claims are facts, because no one argues with them (e.g. that she inappropriately removed records from the hospital), but falsification doesn't fall into that category.

By the way, if this is AthenaEditsWiki, you should log in to post. DominicRA (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also you seem to misunderstand the significance of the low C-peptide AS IT WAS USED IN THIS TRIAL. The experts you reference have issue with the lab test reliability if it ‘exists in a vacuum’ so to speak. But the reality is that the abnormal lab test only had significance BECAUSE those two babies also had signs of hypoglycemia. This is an overlooked point by many but an absolutely critical one. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AthenaEditsWiki: presence cotside shortly before/after many of the deaths The lead section is supposed to be a summary of what's in the body of the article. Beyond her general presence, the article doesn't talk about her precise location in the room around the times of death. Your phrase is also quite vague.

test results indicating insulin poisoning, evidence suggesting air embolism Both of these claims are contested by a number of non-fringe experts. Per policy, this means we don't state them as facts. The wording you had removed is neutral and accurate.

removal of 257 nursing handover sheets This one matters less, but as only 21 of those 257 actually related to infants mentioned in the trial (and presumably even fewer relate to the convictions), listing the number 257 in the lead like this seems to mislead. DominicRA (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stating the number 257 is neutral. Misleading would be noting “only 21 those 257 pertained ti babies in the case,” OR “contained within those 257 sheets was information on 16 of the 17 babies in the indictment”. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the latter phrases are true, but would both be leading, rather than misleading, used.

stating 257 handover sheets were taken is simply a fact. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of those sheets played an insignificant role in the evidence, because they were totally unrelated to the charges or convictions. As such, listing that number in the lead section is misleading. All I'm suggesting is leaving out the number, not saying anything more. DominicRA (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stating the number 257 is fact because she did indeed take 257 handover sheets home. It doesn’t matter if many didnt relate to babies in the indictment- it is the behavior of taking copious amounts of confidential patient information home, and not destroying it, which is significant. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very pertinent part of the evidence and omitting it would be what is misleading. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reader uninformed about the case is likely to assume the sheets related to the infants in the trial. As such, your wording is likely to give the impression that all 257 did. The words wouldn't be outright wrong, but would still be misleading. DominicRA (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be ommited as the behavior of taking copious amounts of confidential information home was part of the prosecution’s case. It is as simple as that. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the number out is even more misleading as an uninformed reader might think it was just a “few” and have an “anybody could do accidentally do that” thought process. In reality, even the most unorganized nurse wouldn’t take 257 handover sheets at home unless it was intentional. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, even the most unorganized nurse wouldn’t take 257 handover sheets at home unless it was intentional.

Cite a reliable source for this claim that is about Letby and her case. Otherwise this is WP:OR. Say ocean again (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the number 257 is important to the prosecution’s case and part of their evidence. Ommitting the number trivializes their evidence. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who thinks it is important? Cite sources. We're not discussing Letby, we're discussing what reliable sources say about Letby. Say ocean again (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That she took 257 handover sheets home is a fact and part of the prosecution's evidence. It is as simple as that. Any attempt to remove this is incorrect. If you can show that it is not a fact in the prosecution's evidence, then do so, otherwise it should stand. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone only moderately familiar with this whole thing---more about the stats than the trial---I think I would have been misled by an unqualified "257 sheets taken". That sort of sounds like she removed 257 pertinent records to hide her guilt, or something; adding something to the effect that not all of them had anything to do with the neonatal cases seems like reasonable context, to me.

06:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Himaldrmann (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see yoy edited it to say “skin discoloration interpreted as air embolism”. This is a false statement.

It was a constellation of features which made the doctors suspect air embolism of which the unusual rash was just one data point. I am a former physician and understood the medical evidence well. How you wrote this section trivializes the actual evidence and creates an impression that there was none. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the section, or that phrase. I also know that the skin discolouration wasn't the only evidence used. I'm happy for the wording to be adjusted to something more accurate, but not for it to be replaced by an assertion of one of the prosecution's contested claims, or by an overly detailed explanation that doesn't belong in the lead. DominicRA (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes I think we both might be able to agree on. I do think the 257 needs to be added back in for the sake of facts and neutrality. It was part of the prosecution’s evidence. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding back in edits that have been removed is considered a reversion, even if you do not use the "undo" functionality. You need to come to a consensus on the talk page before making the same changes again. This information, properly contextualized so it is not misleading, may be appropriate for the body. It is too much detail for the lead. Say ocean again (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be re-written altogether but I have to wait 24 hours to do so. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop focusing on the lead. For example, you say there is other evidence for the air embolism. You can edit that section and add sources to back it up. The lead needs to reflect the body, so if something is missing in the lead, it's either undue for the lead or it's not in the body. You can't just add things to the lead that are not in the body. Say ocean again (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the prosecution’s claims are only being contested in the court of public opinion. We, as a civilized society, need to have more reverence courts and the judgements they, and the jury, render. The verdict of the jury who gave 9 months of their lives hearing the evidence in this case is clear. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this I'm ok with. I propose "abnormal blood test results said by the prosecution's medical experts to be due to insulin poisoning" for the first bit. We want to be brief and the parentheses and "who testified at trial" are unnecessary.

But "Letby's falsification" is a contested claim; even the juries' verdicts don't mean they accepted it. The evidence was the inconsistencies in the records. (Though I'm not sure this is in the body of the article yet) DominicRA (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with "abnormal blood test results said by the prosecution's medical experts to be due to insulin poisoning".

The phrase “inconsistencies in the records” does not accurately describe what took place not what was proven at trial. I say ‘proven’ at trial because even Letby herself was forced to concede that she literally altered some of the medical notes AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say ‘NOR what was proven at trial’ AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you would like to be technical, “inconsistencies in the medical notes” implies that one medical note does not match the other. In this case, Letby conceded in her own testimony that she altered some medical notes by erasing something or changing a time. It was not necessary a note that didn’t match another note. Also, in another case, she wrote an event occurred which did not actually happen- to which a doctor had to write a note pointing out that Letby’s note was false. This is also not a case of one note not matching another so much as one note correcting an incorrect note. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wrong about the "257 handover sheets" thing---unqualified with context, that does seem misleading, to me; I've looked at stuff about the statistical arguments a lot, but hadn't heard anything about handover sheets (AFAICR), and when I read "257" here I interpreted it to mean "257 handover sheets that pertained to the neonatal cases in question"---but I think you're correct here: the note alterations you mention seem more serious than "inconsistencies" implies. Saying "inconsistencies" alone makes it seem as if they could be minor, unintentional errors.

06:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Himaldrmann (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced material being removed

In this edit, DominicRA removed material, saying "sentence was making an obvious insinuation, and the implied claim is contested by experts". The sentence is drawn from a reliable source. I don't see any citations saying this number has been contested by experts. I suggest the edit be restored, or someone actually produce some contestation. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have given more detail in the edit summary. The claim is contested by experts here. The sentence also probably violates WP:BLP. DominicRA (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing some contestation. There are no BLP issues: this is material presented at a public inquiry and reported by multiple reliable sources. Let's return the material to the article and, if you want, add a citation to that Telegraph piece saying "some experts contested this claim", or you can probably come up with some better wording. (That said, we need to respect WP:BALANCE: lots of reporting of the inquiry; is there just one Telegraph article with this alternate view?) Bondegezou (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is a BLP violation because it was worded in a way that is presented as a fact not attributed properly to the source. It also was almost word-for-word from the source, which is a WP:COPYVIO. The 40% figure is from her time as a trainee in Liverpool. You are also not contextualizing it within the audit and the inquiry, which makes it appear it is evidence of her guilt, rather than evidence that the hospital should never had placed her to begin with for a number of issues identified in her original assessment by Lightfoot. [1] Say ocean again (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Second para A murder charge in which the jury failed to find a verdict was retried in July 2024; This refers to an *attempted murder* charge (not a murder charge) Marydsmyth (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Good spot. DominicRA (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already done @DominicRA Make sure to change the "answered=no" parameter to "answered=yes" when you answer a edit request so the request gets marked as answered. Shadow311 (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Letters

“After the trial, it emerged that the notes had been written on the advice of Letby's GP to help her process the extreme stress of being investigated.”

This should be contested. Despite the Guardian reporting this has “since emerged”, at no point when cross examined during her trial did Letby mention this instruction by her GP. In direct police interview transcripts that have since also emerged, she was asked point blank by the interviewer where she wrote the notes and if she told anyone about them - she replied, ‘at home’ and ‘no’ respectively. This evidence is all freely available online. 217.155.80.215 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead neutrality

The final part of the lead section begins, "Since the conclusion of her trials, after an embargo on certain reporting was lifted, experts have expressed doubts..." I removed "after an embargo on certain reporting was lifted" but DominicRA has re-inserted it.

I have never seen another article make such a point in its lead. Trial reporting restrictions are an entirely normal part of justice, yet other articles don't feel the need to draw specific attention to them in this way as if something untoward has happened. The inclusion of the phrase here is, at best, confusing and, at worst, leading. Bondegezou (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't like that sentence. "On certain reporting..." is vague. At the very least "certain" needs to go. Meidat sources usually just speak of reporting restrictions. But I don't see why that is needed in the lead at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reporting restrictions are relevant because they explain the timeline with regard to the expressions of doubt about the case. A natural question for many readers will be: why did the doubts suddenly begin being discussed in early July 2024, rather than when the evidence was first presented starting in 2022 or after the first trial ended in summer 2023? The answer is the reporting restrictions. This isn't contentious and explaining it is simply informative.

I don't think most countries have such restrictions and British people don't tend to have any reason to think about them, so we can't assume readers will just work this out. We have to tell them. If by "as if something untoward has happened", you mean that readers might think the restrictions were unique to this case, then you can change the wording to clarify that they're common in high-profile British cases. But otherwise there's nothing non-neutral at all about the phrase's inclusion. DominicRA (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DominicRA.

Trial reporting restrictions are an entirely normal part of justice - perhaps in the UK, but not in many other countries. This is an international encyclopedia and many readers will not be familiar with British legal oddities. Mentioning the embargo might also be useful for UK readers considering that it meant they had access to fewer reliable sources about the case than the rest of the world (and to some extent continue to do so, as covered further down in the article).

yet other articles don't feel ... - apart from the fact that this far-reaching claim about "other articles" looks entirely unsubstantiated, it is also a textbook WP:OTHERCONTENT argument.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "embargo" is wrong. An embargo refers by the request or requirement of the source of news that the information provided by that source not be published prior to an agreed date and time. Trial reporting restrictions go well beyond a news embargo and prevent coverage on the trial using information from any source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evans' change of mind

@Bondegezou reverted a reference to Evans' change of mind. I've re-instated the sentence which is cited with two sources that directly make the claim and another that can be used by readers to help verify it. I assume Bondegezou is taking the articles quoting Evans' denial to constitute serious contestation of the claim, but simple denial by someone doesn't constitute serious contestation.

Some of Evans' post-trial comments:

"The stomach bubble was not responsible for [Child C's] death [...] His demise occurred the following day, around midnight, and due to air in the bloodstream."

"None of the babies were killed as a direct result of the injection of air, or fluid and air deliberately injected into their stomachs."

Every source out there says the prosecution's position was that air in the stomach was a method of murder or one possible method (depending on the child). Some direct quotes from the trial show Evans saying the same. This is unambigiously at odds with his new claim that none of the infants were killed this way. Until a source agrees with Evans' denial and someone can find a quote from him at the trial contradicting what the rest of the prosecution were saying, we should accept the fact that he did change his mind. DominicRA (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]