It did not, but the blatant misapplication of probability in Meadow's
"expert opinion" was what started my interest. There are a number of
points of evidence that are suspect: pathologists disagreed on whether
features were present or absent, and even if present what this implied.
The first Appeal judgment was in my view a travesty - it included the
suggestion that Meadow could have been challenged by "lies, damned lies
and statistics" and the judges decided that the "1 in 73 million" did not
sway the jury. Well what other evidence has been discussed ever since?
It is a disgrace that the matter has taken so long to come to notice, and
still very worrying that the Establishment seems hell-bent on the
assumption that "one size fits all". Under the previous regime, it was
*assumed* that there was a case to answer so someone must be guilty; under
the new regime it will be *very courageous* to accuse anyone of
foul-practice. Courts (and police) seem incapable of starting from firm
evidence and drawing inferences with probabilities. They start with
conclusions ...
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]
*******************************************************
|