It would be good if some benefit came out of the sorry affair and the legal
system cleaned up its act up.
Certainly the court system (inc. their defence) seems to have let the
mothers down. It is also surely true that an 'expert' witness ought to have
'expertise' rather than give evidence based simply on opinions and poorly
understood notions of statistics and also be aware that the duty is to
court and not to just one party.
Paul Marchant
-----Original Message-----
From: John Bibby [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 19 July 2005 11:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Roy Meadow
I agree with your strictures about defence counsel Ted - Sally Clark no
doubt had other things on her mind.
I have not studied the case, but I understand that the defence counsel WERE
alerted to the issue but declined.
Is anyone writing this up do you know? - I bet there's a TV documentary
being produced as we speak!
JOHN
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email list for Radical Statistics
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ted Harding
> Sent: 18 July 2005 23:35
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Roy Meadow
>
>
> On 18-Jul-05 John Bibby wrote:
> > Thanks for the weblink Ted.
> >
> > I think the "Findings of Fact" which you asked for must be the last
> > 60% of the page, where the phrase "Admitted and found proved" starts
> > appearing.
>
> See my reply to Alison!
>
> > Having now looked at this URL, I am flabbergasted at how crass Roy
> > Measows' evidence is. His statistical errors should have been
> > spotted by an average GCSE student. (Thus of course, one should not
> > be surprised that the lawyers present failed to spot them.
>
> As Tom Lehrer sang of "New Math" (which I'm sure you in particular
> must long have relished, John) "It's so simple, that only a child can
> do it!"
>
> > What about Sally Calrk's defence lawyer - why did he/she not pick it
> > up?)
> >
> > I therefore modify my sympathy for Sir Roy. But I have still less
> > sympathy for the whole legal setup that allows such evidence to be
> > accepted and used to imprison. (Mrs Clark was a solicitor I believe
> > - presumably she too was also unaware of the errors?)
> >
> > JOHN
>
> There's a definite dilemma. In law, the duty of the expert witness is
>
> 1) To be an expert
> 2) To be authoritative
> 3) To be objective
> 4) To assist the Court and not to be "for" any side (even if wheeled
> on, as is alnost always the case, by one side or the other.
> Though I have been in a Coroner's court where some of the Expert
> Witnesses were the "Coroner's witnesses").
>
> There is an implied duty to avoid pronouncing on areas lying outside
> the witness's expert knowledge (i.e. where his lack of expertise
> should lead him to be uncertain of what his view should be), and
> equally an implied duty to express any caveats arising from objective
> scientific uncertainty.
>
> It is a consequence of the above that the expert can pronounce on his
> view of highly technical issues which may be beyond the understanding
> of anyone in the Court. Provided (1-4) above are "proven" to the
> Court, such evidence will be accepted.
>
> By the same token, a fallacious pronouncement by an expert can be
> accepted by the Court, on the same (though by implication now unsound)
> grounds.
>
> It is clear from the GMC's statement that they held Roy Meadow to have
> fallen down on all these fronts. at least where the statistical
> evidence was concerned.
>
> I too feel some sympathy for Roy Meadow. Not for his failure to come
> up to scratch in Statistics, where it seems his performance was pretty
> pathetic, but for the "sentence" passed by the GMC. There would, after
> being so thoroughly discredtied by their "Findings of Fact", have been
> no prospect that RM would ever be called again to give evidence of
> such a kind, and the aim of protecting the public (which loomed large
> in the GMC's justification for striking him off) would have been fully
> served without striking him off. This could have left him able to
> continue doing those things for which, according to many, he has a
> well deserved reputation for doing good (though privately I have
> some doubts about Münchhausen's by Proxy). I rather smell a
> closing of ranks -- the Reputation of The Profession has taken
> a massive hit, Conduct Unbecoming and all that, and the Profession
> has struck back by presenting the front that They Will Have
> Nothing To Do with such a disgrace and will Promptly Extirpate
> The Rotten Apple, thereby Remaining Unsullied.
>
> Be that as it may, the other side of the dilemma is that just as the
> prosecution can call their experts, so also can the Defence, and each
> side's experts have the right of foresight of the primary evidence of
> the other's. Indeed, sometimes there is a "pre-consultation" between
> all the experts, to iron out (if possible) opposing views. This is
> related to the fact that expert evidence in Court can be way over the
> heads of everyone else.
>
> But also -- and here is the point -- good experts for the Defence
> should be able to unpick what is unsound in the expert evidence for
> the Prosecution, giving Counsel ammunition which they can fire in
> cross-examination to confuse, discredit and destroy the enemy. (Again,
> I recently observed a Public Inquiry hearing an Appeal against Refusal
> of Planning Permission to operate a landfill site for disposal of
> hazardous waste. The case by the appellant, resting on numerous expert
> assessments, was shown in cross-examination by counsel for the County
> Council, District Council, and especially by the advocate
> for the local residents' Action Group, to be largely a
> worthless case. The latter, in particular, was in fact a
> professional chemist by background, and knew exactly where
> the gaps in the armour were, and which gaps had the most
> sensitive body-parts behind them.)
>
> [In passing: it's worth reading Patrick Laycock's article "Drug
> Contamination of Banknotes" in "Significance" 2(1), March 2005, where
> this dilemma is hinted at, and certainly the difficulties for the
> expert are somewhat more than hinted at.]
>
> But there, too, is the issue pointed to by John Bibby.
>
> If Sir Roy was going to adduce statistical evidence on the lines that
> Sally Clark's innocence is roughly on a par with the sun not rising
> tomorrow, surely the Defence legal team, if only minutely astute,
> could have consulted experts on their own behalf to give them an
> expert opinion on whether his evidence was sound? But it appears they
> did not, and they could hardly have been unaware of what was
> going to be led.
> .
> As to Sally Clark herself being a solicitor, I'm tempted to
> make allowances for a mother contemplating her murder trial
> for killing her child. But that doesn't let others off the
> hook.
>
> Too late -- long after the conviction in Nov 1999 -- the RSS issued a
> public statement (Oct 2001) exposing the errors and expressing grave
> concern, followed up by an authoritative letter (Jan 2002) to the Lord
> Chancellor (see http://www.rss.org.uk/main.asp?page=1225 ).
>
> Not until Jan 2003 was she cleared on appeal, where of course properly
> authoritative statistical and epidemiological evidence played a
> decisive role.
>
> Finally, in Roy Meadow's GMC hearing in 2005, David Cox convincingly
> demolished RM's statistics on similar lines.
>
> It all took too long -- this demolition could and should
> have occurred during the original trial.
>
> Yes, indeed, what were her lawyers up to?
>
> But what were the rest of us up to?
>
> I feel some guilt myself, in that (no doubt like a good
> few of us) I could see that the evidence during the original trial in
> 1999 was very questionable, and felt sure that it needed a good
> challenge.
>
> If you have expert knowledge relating to evidence being fiven which
> you think is flawed, you can write to the Defence (via their
> solicitors) stating your view and suggesting (even if you think you
> are not fully competent to do the job yourself) that the issues should
> be submitted to expert -- in this case statistical -- review, and even
> suggesting names of authoritative experts. Whether they would take any
> notice of you is up to them, of course. Even I could have dropped them
> that line with at least some authority, but I did not.
>
> But, again like no doubt many others, I expected that such a blatant
> issue would be properly dealt with at the time. When it was not, I
> expected that people of real authority and expertise would rush up to
> attack what they must have seen was a miscarriage of justice.
>
> Whether any leading statisticians began to do so in December 1999 I
> don't know, nor -- if they did -- how far they got. What we do know is
> that it took the RSS two years to issue their public statement, and
> another 6 months before the appeal was heard.
>
> Amongst ourselves, Allan Reese fired a first shot on 10 Nov 1999
> ("Statistics and Justics"), but this led to no barrage. As far as I
> can tell, Allan again fired the next shot, on 27 Jun 2002 ("Sally
> Clark") followed by me on 12 Jun 2003 ("Trupti Patel") followed by 9
> follow-ups ending with John Whittington on 16 Jun 2003 ("Re: numerical
> guilt"), 6 months after SC's successful appeal!
>
> As I say, I feel some guilt myself. But, collectively, as a group with
> a radical agenda who incorporate a number of people capable of drawing
> up a reasonably competent assessment of such issues, we did very
> little then, and do not seem set up to do much now if a similar
> situation should occur again.
>
> Probably there is not much likelihood of a repeat "Sally Clark". There
> has already been too much statisical egg on faces.
>
> The Society of Expert Witnesses has deplored the striking-off of RM on
> the grounds that it discredits them and leads their members to not
> want to get involved.
>
> But, if we are radical, perhaps we should get involved.
> At least to stir it up, trying to encourage the Great and
> the Good to do what there isn't much sign that they did
> in timely fashion over Sally Clark.
>
> And, for what it's worth, I'm willing to try to coordinate
> a group of interested parties from amongst ourselves for
> such a purpose.
>
> I did address this before (23 Jan 2004, "re: SIDS"), in
> which I asked:
>
> "So: should professional societies (RSS, GMC, ... )
> set up "Law Watch" groups which monitor the use of
> their specialities in ongoing cases?
>
> It's all very well taking action after the event which
> ultimately leads to successful appeal, but this takes
> ages and people may spend months or even years in jail
> when they should have been acquitted in the first place."
>
> and also made similar points to some above. I don't think
> the RSS are going down this road, and can't speak for the GMC. But we
> seem to be pretty good at picking up on what's going on, especially as
> reported in the media.
>
> We ourselves have discussed Sally Clark et al. at some
> length at various overdue times.
>
> I know that, collectively, NATO does not appeal to us
> ("No Action, Talk Only", I mean ... ) -- or at least
> it shouldn't!
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Best wishes to all,
> Ted.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
> Date: 18-Jul-05 Time: 23:22:14
> ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
>
> ******************************************************
> 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]
> *******************************************************
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.1/51 - Release Date:
> 18/07/2005
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.1/51 - Release Date: 18/07/2005
******************************************************
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]
*******************************************************
To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm
******************************************************
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]
*******************************************************
|
