Why it matters in the Letby case
Named statisticians have argued the public framing of the Letby shift chart invited the same kind of inferential error the Court of Appeal warned against in Clark.
July 2026: Government declines to widen the Thirlwall terms of reference (16 July) · new 100-page insulin report to the CCRC challenging the trial evidence (9 July) · Thirlwall report still expected no earlier than September · inquests relisted to 2027 · Shoo Lee Panel: no medical evidence of deliberate harm.
Statistical explainer
The prosecutor's fallacy is the error of confusing the probability of evidence given innocence with the probability of innocence given evidence. It was central to the Sally Clark statistical-evidence miscarriage of justice (1999 conviction quashed 2003).
Named statisticians have argued the public framing of the Letby shift chart invited the same kind of inferential error the Court of Appeal warned against in Clark.
The public and courtroom framing of the shift chart invited the inference that a pattern this striking could not have arisen innocently.
Named statisticians argue this is the prosecutor's fallacy — treating the probability of the evidence given innocence as if it were the probability of innocence given the evidence. The Court of Appeal warned against exactly this in quashing Sally Clark's conviction in 2003.
Whether the jury reasoned in this way is not knowable. The critique is about how the material was framed and what inference it invited, not about what any juror concluded.
Confusing two different probabilities: how likely the evidence is if the defendant is innocent, and how likely innocence is given the evidence. They are not the same number, and treating them as one overstates the case.
In R v Sally Clark. She was convicted in 1999 partly on statistical evidence the Court of Appeal later found had been unsafely presented; the conviction was quashed in 2003.
Critics argue the shift chart's framing invited the same inversion — from 'how unlikely is this pattern by chance' to 'how unlikely is innocence'.
See the linked pages for what the trial record and the summing-up contain. The site sets out the record rather than characterising it.
Found an error or missing source? Send a correction with the page URL and supporting source.