It’s impossible to know for sure since we have no information on how they prompted the LLM. Though producing such references when the context window already contains essentially example references, is well within the capabilities of even basic LLMs.

Most of the answers in this thread are missing a quite obvious answer: the lawyer pasted the rest of the non AI generated parts of brief into an LLM as context.

The rest of the brief may contain similar citations and it is producing output consistent with the document it has in its context window

YouTube video by Lucy Letby: The Case For Innocence BBC File On 4 - Lucy Letby: The Killer Questions (Part 2)

And this baby was extremely unwell. The baby was half the size he should have been and the hospital failed to notice the signs of deterioration.

Professor Colin Morley, an expert neonatologist, discussed this case on BBC radio 4. youtu.be/IfjRcXbFnOc?...

The “expert” in question.

FYI @davidallengreen.bsky.social @legalclaret.bsky.social @barristersecret.bsky.social

I’ve acquired and read about 98% of the Lucy Letby trial transcripts and have begun sharing them.

Starting with Dr Evans’ evidence on babies A, B, C, N.

I highly recommend reading at least Baby C cross exam - an extraordinary moment in the trial.

drive.google.com/drive/mobile...

These statements of fact are just false.
Deaths were not unexpected at the time in all instances, retroactively applied.
The sample size of point 3 is just 2 deaths, the triplets.
Point 4 is just nonsense, I don’t know were you got that idea from.

They (like me) have read the transcripts so know what was said

Baby N transcripts reveal previously unreported door swipe data error in Lucy Letby case Police have admitted they made a mistake with the door swipe data used in the trial of Lucy Letby. They wrote IN and OUT the wrong way…

I’ve been reading the transcripts from the case, I detailed one of the allegations here. I sent the transcript of this case to a professor of neonatology who was horrified. He described prosecution witness testimony as “nonsense”. medium.com/@triedbystat...

I wouldn’t say she’s a scapegoat per se, the hospital was negligent but the head of the unit was just laser focused on the idea of her being a serial killer to investigate the failures in the unit seriously. Nero fiddles while Rome burns basically

The defence did attempt to call their witness Dr Hall during the prosecution case however bsky.app/profile/trie...

They did have access to the post mortem! They have the clinical notes. Note this is more than the prosecution expert had when he told the police the babies were smothered (he changed his mind to air embolism later)

They weren’t looking at public documents, they had the clinical notes and evidence from the trial

I’m not jumping on headlines. I have the transcripts and have been reading them, sharing them with experts and reporting what they say.

I don’t know why you’re saying “sorry for you” I’m simply advocating a position?

Baby N transcripts reveal previously unreported door swipe data error in Lucy Letby case Police have admitted they made a mistake with the door swipe data used in the trial of Lucy Letby. They wrote IN and OUT the wrong way…

If you’re interested in the attempted murders, I walked through the transcripts at length and spoke with a professor of neonatology who told me the case of Baby N was “nonsense”.

It’s here if you want to understand just how hypothetical these crimes are medium.com/@triedbystat...

These experts also looked at these. The attempted murder allegations are even more fantastical. And no they did say unexpected and expected. The point being they claimed neonatal deaths are predictable and generally expected

This was for defence evidence to be heard back to back with prosecution, ofc could still be called 8 months later.

A barrister told me this is standard practice.

(I’m sure you know this just filling in blanks for anyone else reading)

@davidallengreen.bsky.social

Also may be of interest. Transcript day 109 - Myer’s motion of no case to answer.

In this Myers reveals defence attempted to call their expert witness but were prevented by prosecution objection (and possibly judge order).

Letby is accused of the former.

So the legal question is now how could the defence introduce evidence to refute a medical finding that was erroneously produced by the court itself?

However this is now made even more egregious as Dr Lee is explicitly contesting this.

The original paper mixed two kinds of embolism. One in the veins, were bloodstream flows towards the heart, one in the arteries were it flows away from the heart.

Skin discolouration *only* observed in the latter

The “tacit” acceptance is not from Dr Lee, it is from Ben Myers.

We’ve always rejected this because the court produced its own medical finding not supported by the paper. Yes babies had skin discolouration but the paper did not say as a result of AE. The court introduced that part

@davidallengreen.bsky.social

Hello, for when you’re writing about Letby again:

You should review COA judgement paragraphs 140-150. Esp 142.

This is not a medical finding from the paper, or in evidence before the court, it’s an (erroneous) medical finding the court deduced itself

That year had higher than average acuity leading to more pressure on neonatal, previous years unit transferred 27w gestation out.

There were 18 deaths in the unit or transferred out. They say 11 were “expected”. Note those stopped too, not just the “unexpected” ones

The unit switched from a consultant ward round twice a week to twice a day, hired an actual neonatologist, and as others have pointed out the acuity of the babies being treated changed

He also described this as the “the main paper we refer, the paper we refer most commonly to”

Including the fact that Dr Evans told the jury if they believed the description of discolouration then “that is what you get in an air embolism”

“Q. And you base that upon what you've read, the description in the report by Lee and Tanswell, don't you?
A. Yes.”

@tomwitherow.bsky.social

A short thread on some of the claims made by Dr Evans to you. Seems like context that should be included

x.com/triedbystats...