DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
Fair enough and it would be up to Labour members who they want in a 3 way contest between Starmer, Burnham and Streeting if he stands again
Streeting doesn't have the numbers. If he had we wouldn't be where we are.
Of course, having the numbers to trigger a leadership contest and having the numbers to join a leadership contest that is already underway are not identical considerations.
Yes I think if there is a contest Streeting will be in it.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur.
They made some changes but not of enough significance to explain the sharp fall.
If there are say 100 units handling premature babies what are the chances that one will have a spike in deaths like that seen at Chester? And that the spike will the regress to the mean?
Pass. I'm a bit rusty.
What's happening with Letby anyway? Is there a chance of a retrial? Or is it all just amateur punditry now?
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?
No. Don't even know what it was about.
A frothy fantasy partly involving intelligent, funny, principled US politicians. Could never happen of course.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur.
They made some changes but not of enough significance to explain the sharp fall.
If there are say 100 units handling premature babies what are the chances that one will have a spike in deaths like that seen at Chester? And that the spike will the regress to the mean?
Pass. I'm a bit rusty.
What's happening with Letby anyway? Is there a chance of a retrial? Or is it all just amateur punditry now?
I think there is a lot of inertia, as in other cases that we have discussed tonight. And I really have no idea if she is guilty as sin or innocent. And to me, that’s a problem.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?
No. Don't even know what it was about.
It was about a lonely albatross called Stephen who could only fly in circles anti-clockwise and is an internal monologue from the perspective of a bird, but really a subtle questioning of Chinese politics, about whether you can change direction if you give strength and freedom to the under utilised part of you. Deep.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?
No. Don't even know what it was about.
A frothy fantasy partly involving intelligent, funny, principled US politicians. Could never happen of course.
And led generations of politically minded Brits to assume the perfection of the checks and balances in the US system, and bag on about it a bit too much. Oh.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I prefer the old Digitiser phrase moc-moc-a-moc.
Sure that’s not Klingon? Some of the Star Trek geeks on here will know.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?
No. Don't even know what it was about.
"The West Wing" was an early 2000s American television drama about an idealised Democratic American President played by Martin Sheen. It was for its first set of seasons written by the dramatist Aaron Sorkin, who built on ideas he explored in his (underrated but undercooked) movie "The American President" a few years earlier. It became a haven for Democratic voters traumatised by Bush II's successes and became a success d'estime. After Sorkin's drug usage became too big to ignore, he was replaced and the series veered, becoming more based around dramatic events than personalities. It ended with a season-long exploration of a Republican candidate (Alan Alda) vs a Democratic candidate (Jimmy Smits) in the race to succeed Sheen in the 2006 Presidential election (in the West Wing universe the elections are out of sync with ours).
It dominated the US political drama space for decades in the same way that "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" (the TV series) dominated spy dramas, for good and for bad. The writing were brilliant, the characters wonderful, the situations were arch, stylised and not really believable. It's only really yielded to "House of Cards" (US version) and has been rendered entirely obsolete by the excrescences of the Trump era. It was held close by people who believed that American politics was dominated by intelligent people who wanted the best for their country, and when that went out of fashion it finally slipped into history
"Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" was the title of an episode in which that logical fallacy was discussed,
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?
No. Don't even know what it was about.
A frothy fantasy partly involving intelligent, funny, principled US politicians. Could never happen of course.
It’s striking that the Americans make The West Wing which is a liberal fantasy of what they think the White House should be where in the U.K. we rip politics apart with Yes Minister/Prime Minister and The Thick of It. I think there’s something profound there.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur.
They made some changes but not of enough significance to explain the sharp fall.
If there are say 100 units handling premature babies what are the chances that one will have a spike in deaths like that seen at Chester? And that the spike will the regress to the mean?
Pass. I'm a bit rusty.
What's happening with Letby anyway? Is there a chance of a retrial? Or is it all just amateur punditry now?
I think there is a lot of inertia, as in other cases that we have discussed tonight. And I really have no idea if she is guilty as sin or innocent. And to me, that’s a problem.
Well nobody knows for sure except her. The uncertainty will only go away if she confesses. Even if the conviction is set aside we still won't know.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur.
They made some changes but not of enough significance to explain the sharp fall.
If there are say 100 units handling premature babies what are the chances that one will have a spike in deaths like that seen at Chester? And that the spike will the regress to the mean?
Pass. I'm a bit rusty.
What's happening with Letby anyway? Is there a chance of a retrial? Or is it all just amateur punditry now?
I think there is a lot of inertia, as in other cases that we have discussed tonight. And I really have no idea if she is guilty as sin or innocent. And to me, that’s a problem.
Well nobody knows for sure except her. The uncertainty will only go away if she confesses. Even if the conviction is set aside we still won't know.
I think you will find that God also knows. Get him in the witness box I say.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
But it’s obvious that recent American military actions have been *caused* by previous movements on the betting markets?!?
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur.
They made some changes but not of enough significance to explain the sharp fall.
If there are say 100 units handling premature babies what are the chances that one will have a spike in deaths like that seen at Chester? And that the spike will the regress to the mean?
Pass. I'm a bit rusty.
What's happening with Letby anyway? Is there a chance of a retrial? Or is it all just amateur punditry now?
I think there is a lot of inertia, as in other cases that we have discussed tonight. And I really have no idea if she is guilty as sin or innocent. And to me, that’s a problem.
Well nobody knows for sure except her. The uncertainty will only go away if she confesses. Even if the conviction is set aside we still won't know.
I think you will find that God also knows. Get him in the witness box I say.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur.
They made some changes but not of enough significance to explain the sharp fall.
If there are say 100 units handling premature babies what are the chances that one will have a spike in deaths like that seen at Chester? And that the spike will the regress to the mean?
Pass. I'm a bit rusty.
What's happening with Letby anyway? Is there a chance of a retrial? Or is it all just amateur punditry now?
I think there is a lot of inertia, as in other cases that we have discussed tonight. And I really have no idea if she is guilty as sin or innocent. And to me, that’s a problem.
Well nobody knows for sure except her. The uncertainty will only go away if she confesses. Even if the conviction is set aside we still won't know.
I think you will find that God also knows. Get him in the witness box I say.
He doesn't always tell the truth though. He likes to fool around sometimes.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur.
They made some changes but not of enough significance to explain the sharp fall.
If there are say 100 units handling premature babies what are the chances that one will have a spike in deaths like that seen at Chester? And that the spike will the regress to the mean?
Pass. I'm a bit rusty.
What's happening with Letby anyway? Is there a chance of a retrial? Or is it all just amateur punditry now?
I think there is a lot of inertia, as in other cases that we have discussed tonight. And I really have no idea if she is guilty as sin or innocent. And to me, that’s a problem.
Well nobody knows for sure except her. The uncertainty will only go away if she confesses. Even if the conviction is set aside we still won't know.
I think you will find that God also knows. Get him in the witness box I say.
Trial by battle?
She might lose the public if she turns up with a syringe full of insulin as her weapon of choice.
The following was posted in Another Place. Do PB's finance types concur or dissent?
"The FT is a paper read by people who don't work in finance assuming that people in finance read it. It hasn't been relevant in finance or even business for many years now. You can also tell this from the comments section which has, like the paper, turned into establishment/"centrist dad" central.
WSJ and Bloomberg took a lot of the top markets/companies people almost a decade ago now (Andrea Felstead was one, genuinely someone who knew UK retail very well). The majority of the remaining columnists either worked in politics or are politics-adjacent. There is almost no detailed finance market coverage. The UK companies stuff was spun out into the Shares magazine 20 years ago.
The FT reflects British society, nothing could be more grubby than becoming involved in commerce. Many of the people who moved up and out go into political journalism because that is high status (i.e. Peston). The FT also has a nasty habit of creating special jobs for people if they are high status enough (Kuper is one, Keynes is the new one, there are many more). The FT is a basically unreformed backwater that is a bit like it was 80s, nothing has really changed. I know a few people who work there in undemanding roles (every couple of weeks attending an expenses paid dinner with a celebrity) and got their job through nepotism. It isn't like anywhere else in UK business or even journalism because of the corporate subscription revenue, the editor is able to run it like a fief.
To give specific examples: Chris Giles is somewhat notorious for being a complete hack. If you are somewhat familiar with how news is made, you should be able to read his stories and work out exactly what conversations led to that story being written. In many cases it is Giles talking to someone adjacent to or in politics. Martin Wolf is a complete dinosaur, if he writes a column you can predict exactly what his take will be because he hasn't had a new idea since 1990. JBM is probably the only journalist who actually writes interesting things, these things however often seem to be conflicted with his personal interests/conversations with civil servants. Stuart Kirk...how does he have a column? Barely worked in markets, somehow the markets guy. Shrimsley, politics guy. Cavendish, worked for Cameron. Beattie, basically a Martin Wolf-lite. Pilita Clark, Lidl Kellaway. It goes on and on. Ineffectual posh people with the most anodyne, pro-establishment positions boring everyone to death with their thoughts."
(Continued below)
Amusingly, I am just about to let my FT subscription lapse, for the first time in... oohhh... twenty years; maybe closer to thirty.
But, no, I disagree.
Yes, Bloomberg is better for breaking company news, but the FT's general market coverage is decent. If I still worked in finance, I would still very much have a subscription.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?
No. Don't even know what it was about.
"The West Wing" was an early 2000s American television drama about an idealised Democratic American President played by Martin Sheen. It was for its first set of seasons written by the dramatist Aaron Sorkin, who built on ideas he explored in his (underrated but undercooked) movie "The American President" a few years earlier. It became a haven for Democratic voters traumatised by Bush II's successes and became a success d'estime. After Sorkin's drug usage became too big to ignore, he was replaced and the series veered, becoming more based around dramatic events than personalities. It ended with a season-long exploration of a Republican candidate (Alan Alda) vs a Democratic candidate (Jimmy Smits) in the race to succeed Sheen in the 2006 Presidential election (in the West Wing universe the elections are out of sync with ours).
It dominated the US political drama space for decades in the same way that "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" (the TV series) dominated spy dramas, for good and for bad. The writing were brilliant, the characters wonderful, the situations were arch, stylised and not really believable. It's only really yielded to "House of Cards" (US version) and has been rendered entirely obsolete by the excrescences of the Trump era. It was held close by people who believed that American politics was dominated by intelligent people who wanted the best for their country, and when that went out of fashion it finally slipped into history
"Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" was the title of an episode in which that logical fallacy was discussed,
And it was one of the very earliest episodes, if I remember rightly. I may even be the first one after the pilot.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur.
They made some changes but not of enough significance to explain the sharp fall.
If there are say 100 units handling premature babies what are the chances that one will have a spike in deaths like that seen at Chester? And that the spike will the regress to the mean?
It is entirely possible there were no murders at all.
If there were murders, however, it seems unlikely it could have been anyone other than Letby.
The question -I think- boils down to the insulin. Because, unless those samples, were contaminated in some way, then those two babies were killed.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?
No. Don't even know what it was about.
"The West Wing" was an early 2000s American television drama about an idealised Democratic American President played by Martin Sheen. It was for its first set of seasons written by the dramatist Aaron Sorkin, who built on ideas he explored in his (underrated but undercooked) movie "The American President" a few years earlier. It became a haven for Democratic voters traumatised by Bush II's successes and became a success d'estime. After Sorkin's drug usage became too big to ignore, he was replaced and the series veered, becoming more based around dramatic events than personalities. It ended with a season-long exploration of a Republican candidate (Alan Alda) vs a Democratic candidate (Jimmy Smits) in the race to succeed Sheen in the 2006 Presidential election (in the West Wing universe the elections are out of sync with ours).
It dominated the US political drama space for decades in the same way that "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" (the TV series) dominated spy dramas, for good and for bad. The writing were brilliant, the characters wonderful, the situations were arch, stylised and not really believable. It's only really yielded to "House of Cards" (US version) and has been rendered entirely obsolete by the excrescences of the Trump era. It was held close by people who believed that American politics was dominated by intelligent people who wanted the best for their country, and when that went out of fashion it finally slipped into history
"Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" was the title of an episode in which that logical fallacy was discussed,
And it was one of the very earliest episodes, if I remember rightly. I may even be the first one after the pilot.
One of the targets hit by Ukraine last night was the 15th Navy arsenal in Leningrad region where ammunition was stored IN THE OPEN.
Had they made the same mistake as the chap in charge of pearl Harbour who was so consumed by the threat of sabotage that he put all the planes out in the open thinking it would be harder for saboteurs to cause major damage and instead made a completely different easy target?
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
At what point will the US government having to bail it out cause the huge correction in the value of the AI bubble?
SpaceX IPO and the two big AI IPO’s could very well do it.
SpaceX feels like a pump and dump with retail and index trackers being on the hook. Valued at 100 times earnings. Not for me.
Trackers and index funds will be able to add it very quickly too.
Will be obliged to, surely, if they are tracker funds ?
It's been exclude, I think, for 12 months from one of the largest (S&P 500), but otherwise they are forced buyers of a grossly overvalued IPO, for which the ordinary rules have been waived.
Surely the point isn't the x100 valuation and whether it's worth that (it isn't) but whether you think somone else out there will pay more than you in 12 months.
It's not what it's really worth that matters but if someone else thinks it's worth more.
That for me is why we are getting such crazy valuations and into a bubble, the same disconnect between fundamentals and emotion that leads to a crash.
Peter.
Sure, there's a FOMO effect, but what's truly egregious about the SpaceX IPO is that there are rules being waived to allow it rapidly to enter indexes which otherwise would have been barred to it for some time. And that obliges tracker funds to buy large amounts of stock, so existing shareholders get more opportunity to dump stock.
S&P recently reversed course on SpaceX, so it will not immediately join the S&P500, which is by far the biggest and most influential index.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?
No. Don't even know what it was about.
A frothy fantasy partly involving intelligent, funny, principled US politicians. Could never happen of course.
It’s striking that the Americans make The West Wing which is a liberal fantasy of what they think the White House should be where in the U.K. we rip politics apart with Yes Minister/Prime Minister and The Thick of It. I think there’s something profound there.
And when they did do a sharp comedy about politicans as idiots, it was written by Brit.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?
No. Don't even know what it was about.
A frothy fantasy partly involving intelligent, funny, principled US politicians. Could never happen of course.
It’s striking that the Americans make The West Wing which is a liberal fantasy of what they think the White House should be where in the U.K. we rip politics apart with Yes Minister/Prime Minister and The Thick of It. I think there’s something profound there.
And when they did do a sharp comedy about politicans as idiots, it was written by Brit.
I don’t think the writer of “John Adams” was British although I could be wrong
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?
No. Don't even know what it was about.
A frothy fantasy partly involving intelligent, funny, principled US politicians. Could never happen of course.
It’s striking that the Americans make The West Wing which is a liberal fantasy of what they think the White House should be where in the U.K. we rip politics apart with Yes Minister/Prime Minister and The Thick of It. I think there’s something profound there.
And when they did do a sharp comedy about politicans as idiots, it was written by Brit.
I don’t think the writer of “John Adams” was British although I could be wrong
Scotland football fans say they are devastated as last-minute changes to travel permits could prevent them from travelling to the World Cup.
UK citizens who want to go to the United States for up to 90 days without a visa need to apply to the country's Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).
But dozens of fans who filled out the form have said on social media that their application status had changed this week from "approved" to "travel not authorised".
Some have told BBC Scotland News they could lose out on thousands of pounds in travel costs due to the changes, with Scotland's first World Cup game kicking off in less than two weeks.
Like all the deportations stories, its nailed on they have lied / omitted some information. I believe what happens is close to travel date there is additional updated screening to check who is arriving in the US in the very near future.
And like the deportations of Europeans who lied about their purpose, it happens all the time and has done for 20 years.
"Police tried to intervene in Henry Nowak murder trial At a critical point in the case, Hampshire Constabulary wanted to release a statement about 'disinformation'".
"Police tried to intervene in Henry Nowak murder trial At a critical point in the case, Hampshire Constabulary wanted to release a statement about 'disinformation'".
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?
No. Don't even know what it was about.
A frothy fantasy partly involving intelligent, funny, principled US politicians. Could never happen of course.
It’s striking that the Americans make The West Wing which is a liberal fantasy of what they think the White House should be where in the U.K. we rip politics apart with Yes Minister/Prime Minister and The Thick of It. I think there’s something profound there.
And when they did do a sharp comedy about politicans as idiots, it was written by Brit.
I don’t think the writer of “John Adams” was British although I could be wrong
Comments
What's happening with Letby anyway? Is there a chance of a retrial? Or is it all just amateur punditry now?
Oh.
It dominated the US political drama space for decades in the same way that "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" (the TV series) dominated spy dramas, for good and for bad. The writing were brilliant, the characters wonderful, the situations were arch, stylised and not really believable. It's only really yielded to "House of Cards" (US version) and has been rendered entirely obsolete by the excrescences of the Trump era. It was held close by people who believed that American politics was dominated by intelligent people who wanted the best for their country, and when that went out of fashion it finally slipped into history
"Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" was the title of an episode in which that logical fallacy was discussed,
I think there’s something profound there.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jun/06/david-sullivan-steps-down-at-west-ham-to-fight-claims-about-private-life
4th v 85th
42nd v 77th
But, no, I disagree.
Yes, Bloomberg is better for breaking company news, but the FT's general market coverage is decent. If I still worked in finance, I would still very much have a subscription.
Bob calls his boss “boss I’m not coming into work today”.
Boss “why not?”
Bob “I’m sick”.
Boss “how sick are you?”
Bob “well I’ve just shagged my mum”.
If there were murders, however, it seems unlikely it could have been anyone other than Letby.
The question -I think- boils down to the insulin. Because, unless those samples, were contaminated in some way, then those two babies were killed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Hoc,_Ergo_Propter_Hoc_(The_West_Wing)
And like the deportations of Europeans who lied about their purpose, it happens all the time and has done for 20 years.
Inane shit.
"Police tried to intervene in Henry Nowak murder trial
At a critical point in the case, Hampshire Constabulary wanted to release a statement about 'disinformation'".
https://www.thetimes.com/
At around 11 mins 20 secs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs5Cgb6vKXw
The murder of five family members in 1985 sent Bamber to prison, but a Channel 5 documentary casts doubt over the conviction
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2026/06/06/the-999-call-that-could-clear-jeremy-bamber/ (£££)
Jeremy Bamber: Proof of Innocence – The Missing Phone Call is on Channel 5 on Monday 8 June at 9pm.
As we are discussing possible miscarriages of justice.