On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, John Whittington wrote:
> Since no-one else has yet commented on this point I made recently, I'm also
> going to repeat that I'm intriqued to know why, even if the jury (and
> Expert Witness) DID believe that there was only a 1 in 76 million chance
> that the two cot deaths had arisen 'naturally', how they jumped from that
> to the specific conclusion that the mother was guilty of murder. Why not
> the father (if one was on the scene), or maybe even other family member or
> friend?
Hi John,
We risk running round in circles, since this point is part of the Meadow
philosophy: the child was found dead by the mother who was alone at the
time, so *because* there are no other signs, the mother must have killed
it. You can brief yourself on the Sally Clark case at www.sallyclark.org.uk
and it is salutary to remember that both Sally and her husband were
solicitors, and it was *his* chance finding of concealed evidence that led
to her eventual acquittal. The first Appeal Court judgment in my view was
a blinkered travesty; like the original trial, it twisted what
circumstantial evidence there might be (some of which was disputed) to the
prejudice that the baby had been murdered and therefore someone must have
done it. Had Sally Clark not been found wholly innocent at the second
appeal, then the same climate of witch hunt would quite likely have
prevented Trupti Patel from appealing, and in turn Angela Cannings ...
The figure was 1 in 73,000,000 - a figure worth remembering as it
immediately struck me (when reported from the trial at Chester) as
unbelievable precise, and hence led me to infer that it was 1 in 8500
squared and thus based on assumed independence. It is therefore clear
that *any* semi-competent data analyst should have made the same
connection, and only the most cursory knowledge of perinatal morbidity was
needed it defeat the argument. Beyond that, the relevance to the question
of guilt depends upon accepting the "prosecutor's fallacy", which the
Appeal Court had earlier ruled must not be explained to juries (or, it
seems, lawyers and judges).
R. Allan Reese Email: [log in to unmask]
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|