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.
Leeuk@feddit.uk 3 days ago
Nah, this journalist can’t say that the jury would reach a different verdict even in light of the challanged evidence - for him to announce they would today find her “clearly not beyond reasonable doubt” is incredibly arrogant. The jury spent 10 months of their lives on this - not a few hours writing this blog and he’s phrasing it like they were stupid.
The biggest red flag for me and still is the handwritten notes and its funny seeing him try rinse away with word salad. I’ve never ever written nor know anyone - including those who have been to therapy - who has a written the words I AM EVIL and I DID THIS. And I Killed them on purpose. Its not careless admin, its damn creepy and certainly would alone be enough for me to feel zero empathy for her. Yes, one may say a normal killer would surely destroy the evidence, but we’re not talking about a normal killer. This guy wants the families to go through hell all over again to likely (by his own admission) reach the same result. Guilty.