There is a potentially serious issue here. If Letby is innocent (I don't know either way) then going after people who didn't stop her from murdering babies is going to be wrong.
There are some on PB who remain fully convinced of her guilt - the trial was lengthy and the jury convicted. There are others (myself included) who have concerns about the trial.
PB users, in the main, tend to be better at statistics than the general public. If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone. And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope.
I see now that prosecuters are looking at other charges. So these will cases where babies died when Letby was present that were not thought suspiciuous until now. This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit.
"If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone." Letby had a historically long trial. The prosecution case did not go, "Look, this neo-natal unit has had more deaths than average. Here ends our case."
"And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope." There were a high number of unusual and unexpected deaths. These are not the sort of deaths that occur because of poor quality care or staff. There was evidence, accepted by the defence, that some babies had been deliberately killed.
"This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit." This is conspiratorial thinking. You are dismissing new evidence on the grounds that you've already made up your mind. Surely new evidence should be welcomed if you are interested in the truth. Let that new evidence be examined.
You are misconstruing my first point. Why did suspicion start - because there were more deaths than expected/usual. See the case of the Dutch nurse who was convicted and later exhonerated in similar circumstances. Once a problem was identified, explanations were sought, and a case made against Letby. The construction of that case is complex, and the trial was complex and lengthy. Clearly the case was not just that there were more deaths.
It is also the case that the exact cases included changed over time. During the time of the the 7 babies she has been convicted of killing, 10 others died. It is not the case that the 7 that died were happy, bonny babies. They were all in need of significant levels of care.
Did the defence accept that some of the babies had been deliberately killed? I was not aware of this, and if true that is NOT the basis for the current concerns (i.e. plenty of experts believe it likely that NONE of the deaths were murder). It would also suggest that the defence was saying 'Letby wasn't the killer, someone else was" and I don't recall that.
I am dismissing no new evidence. Let it be tried in court. But I would ask this - any baby deaths that Letby may be accused of from previous institutions - what was the recorded cause of death on the Coroners report? Were any of them seen as suspicious at the time?
I have consistently said that I do not know if she is innocent or guilty. I DO think there are significant causes for concern in the conviction.
"Why did suspicion start - because there were more deaths than expected/usual." That's at best a very simplistic summary. There were more deaths, but there were also crucially unexpected deaths, babies who seemed fine suddenly deteriorating. Staff became suspicious of Letby early on, but Letby continued working at the hospital for a long period after those early suspicions. Management sought alternative explanations. Eventually the police were brought in. They then investigated, gathering evidence. It is wrong to imply that this was simply a high mortality rate, so they picked on Letby and constructed a case around that assumption. The new negligence charges appear to be precisely because some in management spent so long trying to excuse Letby, not accuse her.
Babies die in neonatal units, so of course there is a process of filtering out the suspicious cases. Obviously, all the babies on such a unit require significant care, but clinical staff have a good idea of the babies who require care but are on track for a healthy outcome and those likely to die. The judgements around each case were put before the court and the jury.
I misremembered the details. The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin, but those were two of the babies who survived and those were attempted murder charges. I don't think the defence accepted any of the murder charges were murder.
"any baby deaths that Letby may be accused of from previous institutions - what was the recorded cause of death on the Coroners report? Were any of them seen as suspicious at the time?" Harold Shipman killed about 250 patients and about 250 of them were not seen as suspicious at the time.
The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin.
I wonder if this it a legal approach and is to do with lack of expert knowledge coupled to a belief that a jury would likely accept evidence presented by experts? (Covoluted phrasing).
I work with analysis of samples all the time. I am aware of the hoops needed to go through for QC purposes and I am also aware that things can go wrong. IIRC the labs in question have produced erroneous data on insulin testing when other samples have been submitted. I cannot recall the details.
I think it an odd approach to accept that the babies were subject to an attack but that it wasn't Letby, as that would imply another killer was responsible. I would have thought challenging the insulin data would be a better approach,
Maybe they accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin because the evidence very clearly shows that. It takes a fair amount of chutzpah to conclude that you know better than both prosecution and defence!
All evidence can be challenged, you must concede that? How many repeats, when was the equipment calibrated, is it QC passed? Where other forms of analysis considered? I'm not suggesting I know better than either, although the quality of her defence has been questioned.
We are not going to agree on this, and thats fine.
All evidence can be challenged, but you need a good reason to challenge it. Too many start with the assumption that Letby is innocent and then try to explain away all the evidence.
So, sure, you can challenge evidence and challenged it has been, but two juries have sat and listened to a multitude of evidence and come to a conclusion. Multiple appeal court judges have re-examined the case and not found any problems.
Too many start with an assumption that processes never go wrong.
Our judicial system is broken at the moment and takes far too long to convict the guilty . . . and far too long to acquit the innocent.
Serious questions have been raised and not answered. Yes, there is a process to follow . . . but, despite your claims to the contrary, that process has not happened yet.
If, and it remains an if, she is innocent then she is in jail for a crime she did not commit because the judicial system takes far too bloody long to get to the truth. Both in originally reaching court, and dealing with reviews.
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
This is the dream of me and ilk. A lurch to the left with 4 years still to do stuff. I doubt it myself but it's a little more 'on' now than it was before this welfare shenanigan.
A wealth tax would be as pointless, complicated and counterproductive as some of the sillier aspects of Brexit. A land value tax could work, but it’s a long term reform not a short term fix.
As the usually spot on Dan Neidle has written about extensively, our problem is that we’re not raising enough from the median worker. That’s partly rates but also working population demographics. Way less than we have done historically and way less than most other countries. A 1 or 2p increase in basic rate income tax would fund more than even an ambitious wealth tax.
That's what I'm talking about. Property. And I agree the point on mainstream rate income tax. The way it's become quasi illegal to change it any way but down is a nonsense.
Power of round numbers. If it were 22% and 41% it'd be easy to bump up a percentage point. But 20 and 40 are such nice clean round numbers. Easier to do fiscal drag.
Very true, politically. One way you could do it is slowly pushing it up while cutting NICs, particularly as the corresponding cut would be larger in percentage terms for NICs (15% v 10%) because you start from a lower base, all while staying fiscally neutral.
A particularly shamefaced Chancellor (I'd be up for it) could claim that was an overall cut. It's not even a lie if you state it's a cut for working people. And if you cut only employee/self-employed NICs, it would be around a 40% cut just from a 10% increase in income tax. That's an easy sell, imo.
Halfords have a sign on their front door requesting cyclists dismount before entering the store. Some signs shouldn't be necessary, but it gave us a laugh. I'm a fairly competent cyclist, but I don't think I could have managed getting more than a metre or so in.
I wonder if Sainsbury's are going to request shoppers leave their cars in the car park.
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims - Public statement of what happened - Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal - Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motives
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.
My anaesthetist was a bit mad. "You're young and fit so I'll be extra disappointed if you die", as he hands me a leaflet explaining that they don't really know why the drugs work in the first place.
I think dying will be just like going under anaesthetic. I've been under a couple of times and you don't remember much about the before, and wake up with a blank mind after, with no remembered dreams or thoughts. So I reckon death is just a lights out moment. The switch gets flicked and you're done and dusted. No after life, no soul drifting up to see the bearded old white fella or being dragged down for a rave in Satan's gaff. Cancel all religions, I've solved it, and it ain't 42.
I've come seriously close to dying three times. Leaving out the capsizing a canoe quite a way out in the Channel, which involved a lot of panic, the other two - oxygen starvation in one and a seizure in the other - were both very calm events. I was not in pain in either, but was very aware of myself 'fading', as it were. My survival instinct was so focused on the physical effects I didn't have any spare capacity to meditate on the potentially imminent end. If I go like that in the end, I'll be quite happy.
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
This is the dream of me and ilk. A lurch to the left with 4 years still to do stuff. I doubt it myself but it's a little more 'on' now than it was before this welfare shenanigan.
A wealth tax would be as pointless, complicated and counterproductive as some of the sillier aspects of Brexit. A land value tax could work, but it’s a long term reform not a short term fix.
As the usually spot on Dan Neidle has written about extensively, our problem is that we’re not raising enough from the median worker. That’s partly rates but also working population demographics. Way less than we have done historically and way less than most other countries. A 1 or 2p increase in basic rate income tax would fund more than even an ambitious wealth tax.
That's what I'm talking about. Property. And I agree the point on mainstream rate income tax. The way it's become quasi illegal to change it any way but down is a nonsense.
The tax system was probably approaching optimal in the mid-90s with a basic rate of 25% and higher rate of 40%. If Labour could get back to that, the public finances would be much healthier.
There is a potentially serious issue here. If Letby is innocent (I don't know either way) then going after people who didn't stop her from murdering babies is going to be wrong.
There are some on PB who remain fully convinced of her guilt - the trial was lengthy and the jury convicted. There are others (myself included) who have concerns about the trial.
PB users, in the main, tend to be better at statistics than the general public. If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone. And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope.
I see now that prosecuters are looking at other charges. So these will cases where babies died when Letby was present that were not thought suspiciuous until now. This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit.
"If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone." Letby had a historically long trial. The prosecution case did not go, "Look, this neo-natal unit has had more deaths than average. Here ends our case."
"And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope." There were a high number of unusual and unexpected deaths. These are not the sort of deaths that occur because of poor quality care or staff. There was evidence, accepted by the defence, that some babies had been deliberately killed.
"This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit." This is conspiratorial thinking. You are dismissing new evidence on the grounds that you've already made up your mind. Surely new evidence should be welcomed if you are interested in the truth. Let that new evidence be examined.
By far the strongest piece of evidence in the trial was the insulin and C-peptide levels of two of the babies.
That is: Baby F and Baby L both showed high levels of insulin, but low levels of C-peptide: a situation which, the expert witness Dr Dewi Evans testified, could only come about through the administration of synethtic insulin.
Now: it is possible that the tests were flawed, or that both babies had some rare condition that led to them having this imbalance. (That is certainly what Dr Shoo Lee believes, when he wrote his report.) If it were just the one baby, then I think the "rare condition" argument be a lot more persuasive. It just seems really unlikely that two babies would both suffer from an imbalance that does not seem to have been recorded in any other babies. The quality of the tests argument seems more plausible, and leads to the question about whether the tests were done at the same facility at the same time, and whether the laboratory in question has registered similar outliers in the past with other tests.
The quality of the testing has been questioned.
... by Letby truthers. Appeal judges have not been swayed by the evidence put before them.
Where's Sir Alan Bates when we need him.
In time this might very well be seen as the right comparison for this case. For now the criminal justice system is doubling down on the existing conviction with these week’s charges.
Letby framed to deflect from NHS negligence in an unholy collaboration between the legal and medical establishment?
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
This is the dream of me and ilk. A lurch to the left with 4 years still to do stuff. I doubt it myself but it's a little more 'on' now than it was before this welfare shenanigan.
A wealth tax would be as pointless, complicated and counterproductive as some of the sillier aspects of Brexit. A land value tax could work, but it’s a long term reform not a short term fix.
As the usually spot on Dan Neidle has written about extensively, our problem is that we’re not raising enough from the median worker. That’s partly rates but also working population demographics. Way less than we have done historically and way less than most other countries. A 1 or 2p increase in basic rate income tax would fund more than even an ambitious wealth tax.
That's what I'm talking about. Property. And I agree the point on mainstream rate income tax. The way it's become quasi illegal to change it any way but down is a nonsense.
The tax system was probably approaching optimal in the mid-90s with a basic rate of 25% and higher rate of 40%. If Labour could get back to that, the public finances would be much healthier.
Partial agreement. 25 vs 50 for me.
I'd go with that if you raise the higher rate threshold to £80k or thereabouts, and remove all the mad tapering that creates silly marginal rates.
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
This is the dream of me and ilk. A lurch to the left with 4 years still to do stuff. I doubt it myself but it's a little more 'on' now than it was before this welfare shenanigan.
A wealth tax would be as pointless, complicated and counterproductive as some of the sillier aspects of Brexit. A land value tax could work, but it’s a long term reform not a short term fix.
As the usually spot on Dan Neidle has written about extensively, our problem is that we’re not raising enough from the median worker. That’s partly rates but also working population demographics. Way less than we have done historically and way less than most other countries. A 1 or 2p increase in basic rate income tax would fund more than even an ambitious wealth tax.
That's what I'm talking about. Property. And I agree the point on mainstream rate income tax. The way it's become quasi illegal to change it any way but down is a nonsense.
The tax system was probably approaching optimal in the mid-90s with a basic rate of 25% and higher rate of 40%. If Labour could get back to that, the public finances would be much healthier.
Partial agreement. 25 vs 50 for me.
NI rates important here. It's just another income tax after all. As a basic principle an employee should keep at least half of the overall payroll cost to the employer.
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
This is the dream of me and ilk. A lurch to the left with 4 years still to do stuff. I doubt it myself but it's a little more 'on' now than it was before this welfare shenanigan.
A wealth tax would be as pointless, complicated and counterproductive as some of the sillier aspects of Brexit. A land value tax could work, but it’s a long term reform not a short term fix.
As the usually spot on Dan Neidle has written about extensively, our problem is that we’re not raising enough from the median worker. That’s partly rates but also working population demographics. Way less than we have done historically and way less than most other countries. A 1 or 2p increase in basic rate income tax would fund more than even an ambitious wealth tax.
That's what I'm talking about. Property. And I agree the point on mainstream rate income tax. The way it's become quasi illegal to change it any way but down is a nonsense.
The tax system was probably approaching optimal in the mid-90s with a basic rate of 25% and higher rate of 40%. If Labour could get back to that, the public finances would be much healthier.
Partial agreement. 25 vs 50 for me.
I'd go with that if you raise the higher rate threshold to £80k or thereabouts, and remove all the mad tapering that creates silly marginal rates.
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
This is the dream of me and ilk. A lurch to the left with 4 years still to do stuff. I doubt it myself but it's a little more 'on' now than it was before this welfare shenanigan.
A wealth tax would be as pointless, complicated and counterproductive as some of the sillier aspects of Brexit. A land value tax could work, but it’s a long term reform not a short term fix.
As the usually spot on Dan Neidle has written about extensively, our problem is that we’re not raising enough from the median worker. That’s partly rates but also working population demographics. Way less than we have done historically and way less than most other countries. A 1 or 2p increase in basic rate income tax would fund more than even an ambitious wealth tax.
That's what I'm talking about. Property. And I agree the point on mainstream rate income tax. The way it's become quasi illegal to change it any way but down is a nonsense.
The tax system was probably approaching optimal in the mid-90s with a basic rate of 25% and higher rate of 40%. If Labour could get back to that, the public finances would be much healthier.
Partial agreement. 25 vs 50 for me.
NI rates important here. It's just another income tax after all. As a basic principle an employee should keep at least half of the overall payroll cost to the employer.
I'd like to see that merged into IT. Logic says so. But I'm not sure it would pass the cost benefit test as a reform.
Comments
Our judicial system is broken at the moment and takes far too long to convict the guilty . . . and far too long to acquit the innocent.
Serious questions have been raised and not answered. Yes, there is a process to follow . . . but, despite your claims to the contrary, that process has not happened yet.
If, and it remains an if, she is innocent then she is in jail for a crime she did not commit because the judicial system takes far too bloody long to get to the truth. Both in originally reaching court, and dealing with reviews.
A particularly shamefaced Chancellor (I'd be up for it) could claim that was an overall cut. It's not even a lie if you state it's a cut for working people. And if you cut only employee/self-employed NICs, it would be around a 40% cut just from a 10% increase in income tax. That's an easy sell, imo.
40% tax cut for working people!
I wonder if Sainsbury's are going to request shoppers leave their cars in the car park.
NEW THREAD