Reading: "Murderous nurse" Lucy Letby in the New Yorker

I found this New Yorker longread super-troubling, especially with this setup early on:

The case against her gathered force on the basis of a single diagram shared by the police, which circulated widely in the media. On the vertical axis were twenty-four “suspicious events,” which included the deaths of the seven newborns and seventeen other instances of babies suddenly deteriorating. On the horizontal axis were the names of thirty-eight nurses who had worked on the unit during that time, with X’s next to each suspicious event that occurred when they were on shift. Letby was the only nurse with an uninterrupted line of X’s below her name. She was the “one common denominator,” the “constant malevolent presence when things took a turn for the worse,” one of the prosecutors, Nick Johnson, told the jury in his opening statement. “If you look at the table overall the picture is, we suggest, self-evidently obvious. It’s a process of elimination.”

Anyone working with data on a day-to-day basis should be worried about selection bias, randomness, or both when looking at such a diagram.

The overall article is highly recommended. I’m not sure what to think about it after finally finishing it, other than the feeling like humans continue to be terrible pattern-matchers, searching for meaning where there may be none. I tried Googling for other sources but this was the least salacious source I could find, perhaps because of British contempt-of-court laws. I wonder what else has been written that’s worth reading?