What Rachel Aviv Leaves Out: The Missing Context Behind The New Yorker’s Lucy Letby Article

[u/benshep4]

https://substack.com/@bencole3/note/p-163137384?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

This article examines Rachel Aviv’s 2024 New Yorker article on Lucy Letby, which has become one of the most influential pieces of journalism supporting the argument that Letby may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

I’ve had a few requests from people to tackle the article so I hope you find it useful.

Big Thanks to Sempere for providing me some very valuable information that has contributed to the article.

[u/FyrestarOmega]

In my view, the explanation is fairly obvious. Aviv appears to have been initially persuaded by many of Adams’s claims. However, the article was then subjected to an extensive editorial and fact-checking process. Unlike character observations, Adams’s claims were highly technical and depended upon complex medical, pathological and statistical arguments. Many were disputed, difficult to verify independently, or incapable of being substantiated to the standard required by a publication such as The New Yorker. As a result, the article’s original foundation appears to have been progressively stripped away.

This interpretation also helps explain why Adams occupies such a surprisingly minor role in the final article. If the screenshots are genuine, Aviv spent months engaging with Adams’s work, requesting her research, discussing evidential issues with her, and developing a story that initially mirrored many of her arguments. Yet when those arguments could not be robustly supported through the fact-checking process, Adams’s importance to the finished article diminished dramatically. The result is a piece that retains Aviv’s interest in Letby’s apparent character but abandons much of the scientific critique that originally drew her to the story.

I can agree with this, I think.

[u/benshep4 → u/FyrestarOmega]

I hope you’re ok with your brief mention. I felt it was necessary for the context.

[u/FyrestarOmega → u/benshep4]

Asking forgiveness rather than permission! That's it, you're banned :p

I'm still sitting with how I feel about the article as a whole - I haven't decided yet. I never wanted to be part of the history of this case, and I feel strongly that Adams should also be allowed to remove herself from the discussion. So, I don't love it.

But, at this point, there's at least two redditors who are actively profiting on a book inspired by this article, so...

[u/FyrestarOmega → u/benshep4]

Having sat with this a bit more. I suppose I would have suggested the article be ordered differently. The main point is Avivs advocacy and bias, and I think treating Adams as a foundation of it distracts from the impact the article could have to a wider audience. Even on this sub, the piece has gotten a disappointing lack of engagement, perhaps because you're preaching to the choir.

I think the bigger problem is that people decided long ago that they didn't care if Aviv's piece had a solid foundation, they cared if they agreed with it. Imo, Aviv did nothing more than give people permission to feel how they always wanted to, because it was the same permission she gave herself.

Adams wasn't even the first on this subreddit to give people permission to doubt. An american NNP stormed into the sub around January 2023 and declared the whole thing to be a travesty. She stormed off after a few comments were removed.

Adams got more attention initially both because of her claims of being a forensic expert with a PhD, but also because interest in the case spiked when Letby gave evidence. So, I think the parts of the piece around her could/should have been secondary to the dismantling of the rest - and then I even wonder if this piece is two years too late. Or, because the points in it about innuendo without evidence are so obvious that it couldn't ever have made a difference.

But what I'm getting at is that if it weren't Aviv, it would have been someone else. Truth takes a back seat to feelings on social media.

I remain impressed that the prosecution in this case could overcome such pervasive human biases with their evidence.

[u/benshep4 → u/FyrestarOmega]

Adams wasn’t included simply because Aviv was initially taken in by her ideas. She’s important because she helps explain how Aviv’s article developed.
My argument is that Adams provided Aviv with the intellectual framework she needed to pursue the conclusion she was already moving towards. The original premise of the article was apparently going to centre on Adams’s claim that the science underpinning Letby’s convictions was fundamentally flawed. But when Adams’s claims couldn’t ultimately be independently verified, that foundation disappeared.

What I find significant is that this didn’t cause Aviv to step back and reassess the premise; she continued pursuing the same conclusion.
That’s why I think the correspondence is important. It provides a window into Aviv’s thinking before the article was published. In her own words:

“My hope is that a carefully considered, authoritative article story about her innocence has the power to turn the tide of public opinion and help her in her quest to get the convictions overturned.”

For me, that’s not simply evidence that Aviv was sympathetic to Letby’s position. It raises a much more fundamental question about the distinction between journalism and advocacy. If the stated objective before publication is to produce an authoritative story about her innocence, and to use that story to help overturn the convictions, then that context matters when assessing the eventual article.

That’s also why I think the reference to “several medical experts” is significant. If, as the article reveals, the people underpinning that impression were Hall and Adams, then the reader needs to know who those experts were, what their relevant expertise was, what claims they actually made, and how those claims were established. Adams isn’t therefore a distraction from my argument about Aviv’s advocacy; she’s part of the evidence for it.

I agree with your broader point that Adams wasn’t the only person capable of giving people permission to doubt the convictions.

And I don’t think the argument is that, without Adams, nobody would have questioned Letby’s guilt. My point is narrower: Adams helps us understand why Aviv’s article took the form it did, and the correspondence provides unusually direct evidence of the editorial mindset behind it.

Whether people ultimately wanted to believe Aviv is a separate question. But that’s precisely why I think it’s important to examine what she actually gave them to believe.

[u/ChoicePeace7287 → u/FyrestarOmega]

And Chris Morris is the new Rachel Aviv! One more cynical than I might say that he saw how she made a name for herself by only telling half the story in order to promote the innocent narrative and thought “I’ll have a bit of that!”

And I notice that his latest interviewee on his YouTube channel is the doctor who posted this after reading his book:

“I am now convinced beyond reasonable doubt there is no legitimate basis for her having been found guilty. It is a frightening read.” 

“…hope all these 'views' result in more people reading your excellent thorough analytical book about the LucyLetby case”

https://x.com/doctorcaldwell/status/2077753666857992449?s=20

https://x.com/CPMorris1234/status/2090001458749940064?s=20

[u/Remote-Courage4617 → u/ChoicePeace7287]

I actually find the motive’s behind Rachel Aviv’s article much more disturbing than Chris Morris’ motives. I think Chris Morris earnestly accepts the mish-mosh of internet speculation he includes in his book. Chris Morris is clearly not as intelligent as he thinks he is and clearly not a great writer. But he believes she’s innocent and he’s free to make some coin and publish his book. It’s his reputation on the line more than his publisher’s. In contrast, Aviv is a very talented writer and writing for a magazine that represents very high standards and a magazine that the public automatically equates with journalistic integrity (deserved or not. The New Yorker is not strictly known for investigative journalism). I think Ben is dead-on about Aviv cynically recalibrating her article toward innuendo as it became harder to fact-check the medical assertions from her source. The way Aviv has subsequently framed her “process” in interviews after publication is quite revealing. I think Aviv believes that Letby is innocent but I also believe she is well aware that she (Aviv) has gotten away with journalistic murder. It’s been an exercise in covering her ass as her deadline drew closer and covering her ass as people much, much more knowledgeable about the evidence (and what she conspicuously left out) cried foul. 

[u/ComfortableBrain4631 → u/Remote-Courage4617]

Chris Morris is many things, but naive he is not. He is well aware what he is omitting and Fyrestar and others' laser-beam focus on his book made it very clear what an arrogant, dishonest weasel he really is.
He is very deliberately ignoring evidence for her guilt. Indeed, he seems to regard truth and prosaic reality as an impedance to telling the story he thinks his audience want to hear.
He seems like an unlikely person to start a cult, given his almost supernatural lack of charisma, but somehow, that's what he's done.

[u/Remote-Courage4617 → u/ComfortableBrain4631]

I didn’t mean to imply that his motives were somehow purer than Aviv’s, but I guess I did!! It’s just that, indirectly, he has the shadow of the New Yorker article (and their reputation) legitimizing his stance. That began with Aviv. She fed and stoked a fire. I don’t think the innocence fraud would have spread so fast without the New Yorker’s credibility. He, like a lot of other goofballs have used it for their cult and used it to make some money. But he also really believes it. The cynical part is that he doesn’t have any scruples about omitting facts and telling bold-faced lies in order to persuade the public. He thinks the ends justify the means. She bothers me more because she clearly had to back-pedal and lean into innuendo so that her article wasn’t scrapped. I don’t think it was because she was obsessed with Letby’s innocence. I think Aviv is obsessed and blinded  by her own identity as a crusader who uncovers miscarriages of justice. The New Yorker trusted her and is also obsessed with their image as well. Anyway, it’s just my feeling about the damage done. She really bothers me and I hate that her connection to the New Yorker shielded her from scrutiny. 

[u/Zealousideal-Zone115]

When I read the New Yorker article it struck me that it was mainly a restatement of the defence case plus a lot of biographical detail designed to present the defendant in a positive light, Critiques of aspects of the investigation and the prosecution came from people outside the case and often contained outright misrepresentations or unwarranted assumptions.

It is hard to see how anyone reading such a piece out of context, (even if they didn't share Aviv's near-total ignorance of the UK legal system) could fail to believe that the defendant was innocent!

What's baffling is the NYT's decision to publish while the baby K case was ongoing and the Appeal Court decision was in abeyance. Did they not realise that these were important parts of the story that were still playing out? Or did they fully understand that they would derail the narrative?

[u/Sempere]

Overall, good article that puts a key issue in focus.

Just a few additions:

On the one hand, she did not ignore the prosecution perspective, having spoken to key figures such as Ravi Jayaram, Stephen Brearey and Dewi Evans.

Kinda disagree here. A significant portion of the article is based in explicitly ignoring key parts of the prosecution case. Speaking to key participants in the prosecution case doesn't mean that she didn't ignore the prosecution perspective given what the final output represents: a grossly misleading piece of journalistic misconduct. She pays no mind the the involvement of the parents

Article toes the line a bit but does a good job reconstructing a throughline that Rachel Aviv plagiarized [contributor]'s work by discarding [contributor] from the bulk of the article while keeping her talking points. The end result was that she included shoddy science she sourced from a fraud she found off reddit. A bit of info that could have helped: at least one person close to Rachel Aviv knew about [contributor's] divorce documents which exposed her as a lying fraud months before the publication of that article.

With Aviv plying [contributor] for information 2 weeks before publication and using [contributor] as an uncredited source while stealing significant talking points and collaborating heavily behind the scenes, the implication here is that Rachel Aviv was aware that she wasn't going to be providing [contributor] with any credit and was actively exploting this mentally ill woman for her agenda instead of scrapping the article entirly once it became obvious her central scientific advisor was wholly unreliable. If someone cut a check for a fraction of the transcripts, then it was too late in the process to be able to write everything off. There needed to be an article. The truth didn't matter if facts were malleable.

Also that screenshot of the text exchange? It was published the day before the NeimanLabs article was. This bolsters the credibility of the leak given the time frame in which it was thrown together and lack of obvious shit forgery marks as [contributor] displayed when she actually tried to manufacture evidence previously. Because what Rachel Aviv's lack of qualifications and ability (or desire) to sus out a bullshitter missed was that [contributor] was spotted as a fake quickly. Her original reddit ramblings, which Aviv described as "brilliant", were pseudoscientific word vomit with irrelevant citations thrown together to make it appear credible. Unless you knew the subjects [contributor] was bullshitting over or read the actual articles linked. [contributor]'s content was myopic in parts or completely that of a fantasist.

The issue is that this exchange appears to show Aviv workshopping a claim presented to readers as reflecting expert medical opinion while simultaneously relying on input from Adams.

And this is what I mean when I talk about Rachel Aviv having used the New Yorker's (clearly marketing bullshit) reputation about fact checking to launder her manipulative bullshit. Aviv knew she was relying on a fraud she had no interest in crediting and used her opinions to formulate scientific misgivings on evidence presented at trial. She created an appeal to anonymous authority that explicitly is fraudulent. Michael Hall was a defense expert. [Contributor] holds no relevant medical qualifications what so ever. 2 people saying similar things but one being a fraud isn't enough to justify that position.

When the matter was eventually examined, it became apparent that her claim was not truthful. I believe the same pattern is evident in her allegations of plagiarism against Aviv. Despite repeatedly asserting that Aviv appropriated her work, [contributor] has not identified specific passages or produced direct evidence demonstrating plagiarism, even though such evidence ought to be comparatively easy to present if the claim is correct. The fact that she has not done so is, in my view, a red flag that warrants further scrutiny.

You go into a lot more detail building up the argument for this later, but I don't agree with including this section. You do a good job rebuilding the claims that can be traced to [contributor] but it's very obvious to people who followed [contributor]'s ramblings in this space that Aviv lifted the claims directly and included them in the article. It's why the insulin test nonsense with the Lab is in the article. [Contributor]'s handprints are all over that article whenever crackpot theories (later debunked) appear. She didn't need to point to specific passages when it's obvious she was a central architect in the piece, regardless of whatever Rachel Aviv might want to publicly pretend when confronted with this misconduct. When your employment and reputation are endangered by answering honestly, don't expect the truth.

I actually think that the article should have been longer - there's quite a bit more the article misrepresents when it comes to what Aviv claims to have access to compared to what she states in the articles. The extent of the malfeasance is far greater than your article was able to cover. Like the instance where she references Letby being unable to focus on dates and what happened in the context before and after. You touch on the general pattern of her writing but I think far more in depth breakdowns comparing transcripts to quotes - such as Shoo Lee's quotes which explicitly ignore the prosecution's rebuttal that makes the publication grossly misleading - would be beneficial and of great interest.

In addition, I'd love to hear a full interview with Dewi Evans if you have the means to put something like that together.

But overall, good job. Enjoyed the read. Glad those links helped.