The other half of the equation is bias in the investigation. Often a poor understanding of statistics is used to start investigations, unfortunately those inves

The other half of the equation is bias in the investigation. Often a poor understanding of statistics is used to start investigations, unfortunately those investigations are started with the premise that a particular person “is probably guilty”. Turns out that when medical investigations are performed looking for wrongdoing, they’re much more likely to find wrongdoing that if the investigation was performed simply to understand if correct policy and procedure are followed. As a consequence it’s very normal for deaths previously ruled “normal” to suddenly become “suspicious”. When people have studied these types of investigations, and has the evidence re-evaluated by unbiased investigators, the results are usually that nothing untoward occurred, or that deaths are better explained by systemic failures rather than the actions of specific individuals. There’s a good reason why we don’t let police go on fishing expeditions. Medical investigations, frequently initiated by untrained administrators, and performed by individuals within a hospital with no formal training in performing unbiased investigations, nor given enough to perform proper investigations, simply don’t hold up to the standards we would expect from a criminal investigation. None of this is to say that the Letby verdict is unsafe, but it wouldn’t be the first time a medical investigation with lots of evidence resulted in an awful miscarriage of justice.