Miscarriages of justice: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|podcasts|}}====Standard of proof==== Beyond reasonable doubt is a ''very'' high standard. This is not just more likely than not: there has to be no room for doubt about it. This means an alternative explanation, if it is not absurd, if it cannot be ruled out It is satisfiable easily enough where there is direct ''independent'' evidence — from a third party with no interest “no dog in the fight” who directly witnessed what was going on. Where there is no...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
====Circumstantial considerations==== | ====Circumstantial considerations==== | ||
=====modus operandi===== | |||
* | For multiple offences: how consistent is the modus operandi? If you don’t have eye-witness evidence there needs to be something suggesting the same motivating cause was behind all the offences, and mere “proximity to the scene of the crime” is a loose connection indeed. The more “crimes” there are the more germane will be the similarity. (Clearly, with a single crime, there is no possibility of similarity!) | ||
Beware the “well, lookee here” theory, where there is ''no'' forensic evidence tying the defendant to the crime, and presence/opportunity is the only one. | |||
*[[Lucy Letby]]: Not consistent MO: multiple kinds: insulin, air embolism, overfeeding, knocking out tubes. Sounds like you are fitting the action to the outcome and not vice versa. If you discover 15 people all of whom have been shot between the eyes with the same calibre rifle in the same neighbourhood, there is a starting presumption it the same cause did for them all. | |||
====Understanding probabilities==== | |||
Revision as of 16:18, 24 May 2024
|
The JC Sounds Off™
|
Standard of proof
Beyond reasonable doubt is a very high standard. This is not just more likely than not: there has to be no room for doubt about it. This means an alternative explanation, if it is not absurd, if it cannot be ruled out It is satisfiable easily enough where there is direct independent evidence — from a third party with no interest “no dog in the fight” who directly witnessed what was going on.
Where there is no direct evidence, then the circumstantial evidence has to be compelling.
- No plausible alternative explanation, including “shit happens”
Circumstantial considerations
modus operandi
For multiple offences: how consistent is the modus operandi? If you don’t have eye-witness evidence there needs to be something suggesting the same motivating cause was behind all the offences, and mere “proximity to the scene of the crime” is a loose connection indeed. The more “crimes” there are the more germane will be the similarity. (Clearly, with a single crime, there is no possibility of similarity!)
Beware the “well, lookee here” theory, where there is no forensic evidence tying the defendant to the crime, and presence/opportunity is the only one.
- Lucy Letby: Not consistent MO: multiple kinds: insulin, air embolism, overfeeding, knocking out tubes. Sounds like you are fitting the action to the outcome and not vice versa. If you discover 15 people all of whom have been shot between the eyes with the same calibre rifle in the same neighbourhood, there is a starting presumption it the same cause did for them all.