As a statistician who reacted instantly to the report of Roy Meadow's evidence in Sally Clarke's first trial, I was appalled to hear the editor of the Lancet on the radio this morning suggesting that any investigation now was with the benefit of hindsight. It was immediately obvious at the time that the evidence was flawed and outside his professional competence, but was accepted because of the gravitas of his reputation. The argument that the system was flawed and hence no individual should be individually accountable is perverse. There were other issues, apart from ignorantly quoting the dramatic but wrong statistic, for which Roy Meadow was criticised during or shortly after the trial. It is regrettable that The Lancet does not treat the whole matter as currently sub judice.
This comment made in a purely personal capacity, and no relevance to my employer.
R Allan Reese CStat
Riverside Cottage
Forston
Dorchester DT2 7AA
***********************************************************************************
This email and any attachments are intended for the named recipient only. Its unauthorised use, distribution, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you have received it in error, please destroy all copies and notify the sender. In messages of a non-business nature, the views and opinions expressed are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation from which it is sent. All emails may be subject to monitoring.
***********************************************************************************
|