The issue here is people are trying to apply scientific reasoning in a legal setting. The two are not the same. There is a legal process for bringing in scientific reasoning - you can’t just hash it out in court like you would in an academic paper.
I say the case needed a statistician. Incredibly, the prosecution deliberately decided to avoid using one to assess questions like “How unusual is this shift pattern for a random nurse?” or “How likely was it that said nurse was personally drawn to caring for the sickest infants? How were shifts assigned?”
Yes, it might have been better for Lucy if there was a statistician. However, it’s not the prosecution’s job to prove her innocence, it’s her’s and her solicitor’s. If there needed to be a statistical analysis and sworn statement from an expert, it would be on the defendant to arrange that.
Denjin@lemmings.world 11 months ago
The case is with the Criminal Cases Review Commission and if they find there is significant evidence that an appeal could be granted it will be referred back to the court of appeal, as it should.
Unqualified, random bloggers online are not capable of assessing the evidence sufficiently and therefore should keep their sensationalised bullshit to themselves.