According to the judge of the trial, most of the evidence was circumstantial [1]. I don't know which part of the evidence the judge considered circumstantial, and which not.

The police have said that the duty roster spreadsheet shown to the jurors was an important piece of evidence used to convince the jurors [2].

The spreadsheet in question has been circulated in the media (I'm assuming, by the police) and it can be found in various places [3].

Looking at that spreadsheet there is something that immediately jumps out to me and that makes me think that at least that piece of "statistical" evidence was downright dodgy.

I am curious to know if anyone else on HN sees the same thing. Here's a direct link to the image on the Mail website:

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/18/22/74487747-12286051...

To be clear: I'm not trying to trap anyone, I'm just really curious to see what everyone else thinks _about this particular piece of evidence_.

____________

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66823777

Summing up at the end of her trial, judge Mr Justice Goss told the jury it was a case in which the prosecution "substantially, but not wholly" relied on circumstantial evidence.

[2] https://theweek.com/law/lucy-letby-and-the-importance-of-und...

Chief among these was the duty roster spreadsheet showing staff shifts, through which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was "able to show the jury that Letby was the one common denominator in the series of deaths and sudden collapses on the neonatal unit".

[3] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12286051/Lucy-Letby...

See first image on top, titled: "Staff chart that shows Letby was present at every chilling incident".