At 11:19 22/01/04 +0000, Allan Reese wrote (in part):
>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.
That's exactly my point. The seeming dramatic and 'overwhelming' figure of
'1 in 73 million' was clearly going to be a major factor in convincing a
jury at least that murder has been committed, so it seems unbelievable to
me that a competent defence would not have sort some sort of 'expert' (or
even semi-expert') view on the validity of that figure.
Although, as several of you have reminded us, the 'statistical evidence'
was not the entire case, I still seriously doubt that the jury at the
original trial would have convicted in the absence of that 'statistical
evidence' - after all, it was the nearest to any direct 'evidence' they had
that ANYONE has murdered the babies.
Kind Regards
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK [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]
*******************************************************
|