Today's discussion about the news

Must be why tents and caravan awnings famously never blow away in a stiff breeze.

Re Lucy Letby... Phil Hammond's not letting go. As time goes on, there seem to be more and more questions marks about the conviction. My bold prediction is that the conviction will be reviewed, as it does appear that the jury did not have enough information to reach a safe verdict, especially regarding evidence which might have cast doubt on the evidence of the key prosecution expert witness. Why that counter-evidence was not presented is intriguing, but it certainly seems there are strong reasons to doubt that the conviction is safe (or, at minimum, needs to be reviewed).

Of course, but he's not the only person with these concerns... AFAIK he's got no connection with the Graun reporters in the quoted report (though he's obviously quoted it because it chimes with his worries).

The crux is not that the conviction is necessarily wrong, but if evidence that might have given jurors cause to doubt the only expert witness was ignored or withheld (for whatever reaons), then it would suggest it's an unsafe verdict. The current enquiry is starting with the premiss that the verdict was de facto correct, so is in no way helping (and probably hindering) an unbiased consideration of the matter, though obviously it's not within their purview (in effect) to retry the case. But, and it's a big 'but', if the causes of death were because of a ward operating way beyond its capability, and thereby a major institutional failure, an enquiry whose remit is to discover 'How did this murderer do these awful crimes?', will produce a report which is without any relevance whatsoever.

Fair enough, it's just that normally institutional failings don't end up with someone in prison for multiple murders, so it's understandable that this case arouses extra interest.

Takes me back to my old network days.

Worth reading the whole tweet and listening to the whole interview.

She managed not to say the quiet part out loud. Just.

One for @First.Aspect, given his admiration for what Scotland has achieved with devolution. Just think of their sources of wealth, such as daffodils, and tin, and tech giants setting up shop in places like Redruth, Camborne, and Bugle...

At least they could discuss my modest proposal of scooping out the entire inland area of Cornwall, so the middle turns into one big beautiful lake, so you have a lot more scope for waterside properties, Camborne and Redruth disappear along with all the spoil tips, and all the stuff scooped out could be taken to the Somerset Levels to make them into mountains, and Bridgwater & Highbridge disappear. I can't see that there would be any objections.

Maybe it needs competitive bidding for who gets the mountains.

Calling Mr Trumpet.

You've been following this very closely. Any thoughts or have you heard any additional context?

I am increasingly wondering whether the convictions, though possibly based on misleadingly presented statistics (which probably is around par for legal cases), are in fact about right.

This article reads to me that there would have to be three routine insulin assays that were each independently wildly inaccurate, for the defense to have an arguable point.

Interesting reading, even if it's only vaguely pertinent (or not at all)... but it does seem that there are parallels.

Yes, indeed.

But the thing is it's an asymmetric argument, as the defence does not have to prove she's innocent. Obviously the original case stands unless it gets retried, but if there's a strong argument that significant doubts were not made evident to the jurors as they should have been, then the case for a retrial, including the insulin evidence, becomes stronger.

I don't think any of the reasonable sceptics are claiming that she is de facto innocent (obviously her new defence lawyer is taking that line), but that statistics were misused to eliminate reasonable doubt. I think the concern is less about this actual case, but how it reflects on the judicial use of medical and other experts. The case highlights the issues well, with the experts not necessarily willing to embrace the possibility that they might be wrong, for the effect it could have on their professional credibility. Once they've hitched their colours to the prosecution or defence, they are more likely to stick to their guns (sorry, mixing metaphors) rather than admit weakness in their argument, so it turns into a confirmation bias exercise.

Yeah, lack of competent defence (given all the stuff that's being aired now) is problematic, and is not in itself an argument for a retrial.

Dunno about all the context questions, but Hammond's parallels with the Bristol case (which he was heavily involved with in revealing the failures) are that it was a ward acting way beyond its capabilities. In such circumstances, widespread harm is almost inevitable as individuals are not competent for their assumed roles. Incompetence, however, is not murder, even if the end result is the same.

Who? Telegraph, GB News, anti-social media, Musk, Neil Oliver?

Was expecting some bleating about freedom of speech, and liberty to burn down hotels when I heard the news.

utter f***wits indeed.