Lucy Letby: the ineffable truth: Difference between revisions

Line 6:

Run as it is by those who ''also'' were not at the trial, who by their own logic have no better idea of how compelling a spectacle the trial was, it really amounts to this declaration:

{{quote|“The outcome of this trial is agreeable to me. I wish to entertain no further debate about it.”}}

It is as if, ''[[res ipsa loquitur]]'' the process is presumed so immaculate, infallible, to be impervious to later inspection. It was orchestrated by the arcane rules of court: the curious rules of criminal procedure, the law of evidence, the ~~often~~ derided principles governing [[expert evidence]]. Its midwife was the fork-tongued swordplay of duelling barristers.

It is as if, ''[[res ipsa loquitur]]'' the process is presumed so immaculate, infallible, to be impervious to later inspection. It was orchestrated by the arcane rules of court: the curious rules of criminal procedure, the law of evidence, the oft-derided principles governing [[expert evidence]]. Its midwife was the fork-tongued swordplay of duelling barristers.

From that tremendous melée, we are asked to suppose that 12 random citizens, with no particular powers of critical analysis between them, carried off a special feat: from months of fact, parry, thrust and counterthrust they are supposed to have extracted a simple impression clear enough of reasonable doubt to form a verdict but yet at the same time so mystical and magical and ''ineffable'' that it cannot thereafter be replayed, explained or rationalised to an increasingly sceptical public. No one can now make sense of it, and this is meant to be okay.

~~From that tremendous melee~~, ~~12 random citizens~~, ~~with no particular powers of critical analysis between~~, ~~carried off a special feat: from~~ the ~~months of technical detail~~, ~~parry and counterthrust~~ they ~~are supposed to have extracted~~ a ~~simple~~ and ~~indubitable impression clear enough to form a verdict, but yet at~~ the ~~same time so ineffable, mystical and magical that it cannot thereafter be replayed or explained~~.

“What happened during the trial” is, apparently, immune to synopsis. Its salient points may not be drawn out, distilled or decanted, in broad strokes or fine, for those who were not there. Like the peace if God, it passeth all understanding. It is immune to mortal analysis. The holy spirit was upon these jurors, they spoke in tongues, their word was made flesh, a guilty soul was condemned and the spirit is gone. We who remain must silently abide.

~~“What happened during the trial”~~ is ~~thus immune to summary~~. ~~Its salient points may not be drawn out, distilled, decanted or played back~~ in ~~broad strokes for those who were not there. Like~~ the ~~peace if God, it passeth all understanding~~. It ~~is immune to mortal analysis. The holy spirit was upon these people, they spoke in tongues, now their word is made flesh and~~ the ~~spirit is gone~~. ~~We must silently abide~~.

A curious feature of this argument is that itd force depends on what we cannot see. It stays in the shadows. It strikes from the dark. What we cannot apprehend we cannot challenge.

~~There is a curious feature~~ of ~~this argument:~~ it ~~depends for its force on what we cannot see. It stays in the shadows, striking from the dark. What we cannot see we cannot fight. It~~ shares ~~this quality~~ with conspiracy and ~~faith~~. We must subordinate the surface ~~movements~~ to something unseen, base~~, some ineffable corruption~~ of the human ~~condition~~.

This quality of impermeability it shares with two other kinds of intellectual construct: conspiracy theories and sacred faiths. To hold these beliefs we must subordinate the causes of movement across the landscape’s surface to something unseen, inferred machinations beneath it. These are deep impressions, not readily rendered in argument, matters of deep, unmentionable faith; allegiance to certain people whom we place upon a pedestal, and dark imputations of base instinct — primordial corruptions of the human spirit from villainous others, whom we assuredly don’t.

But explicitly, the criminal law does not work like this. It is — to a fault — ~~rationalist and~~ evidence based. ~~The evidential~~ rules are strict. It is ~~entirely big~~ the surface. ~~Prejudicial~~ suspicions are sponged from the record. ~~Innuendoes are struck down~~. A concluded case cannot defy comprehension.

But explicitly, the criminal law does not work like this. It is — to a fault — rational. It is unfailingly evidence-based. Evidence is the be-all and end-all. Admissibility rules are strict. All that is allowed to matter is what lies on the surface. Innuendos and prejudicial suspicions are sponged from the record, unless they can be raised to the surface and put in full view of everyone for inspection and test. Everything is open to audit. ''A concluded case cannot defy comprehension.''

It is also marked in contrast to the defence case, whether made by Ms. Letby’s actual defence team and their experts or those the unaffiliated journalists, statisticians, doctors, scientists, lawyers and (ahem) windbags who have chosen to speak on her behalf. The defence case is by nature public, detailed, specific articulated, and welcoming of good faith challenge. It has not had much. The credible challenges that have come back have been either ''formal'' in nature— the rules have been followed, she had her chance, ''ilea iacta est'' — or somehow ''mystical'' — there are things about this process that resist intellectual inquiry and must not be disturbed.

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 Run as it is by those who ''also'' were not at the trial, who by their own logic have no better idea of how compelling a spectacle the trial was, it really amounts to this declaration:
 {{quote|“The outcome of this trial is agreeable to me. I wish to entertain no further debate about it.”}}
-It is as if, ''[[res ipsa loquitur]]'' the process is presumed so immaculate, infallible, to be impervious to later inspection. It was orchestrated by the arcane rules of court: the curious rules of criminal procedure, the law of evidence, the often derided principles governing [[expert evidence]]. Its midwife was the fork-tongued swordplay of duelling barristers.
+It is as if, ''[[res ipsa loquitur]]'' the process is presumed so immaculate, infallible, to be impervious to later inspection. It was orchestrated by the arcane rules of court: the curious rules of criminal procedure, the law of evidence, the oft-derided principles governing [[expert evidence]]. Its midwife was the fork-tongued swordplay of duelling barristers.
+From that tremendous melée, we are asked to suppose that 12 random citizens, with no particular powers of critical analysis between them, carried off a special feat: from months of fact, parry, thrust and counterthrust they are supposed to have extracted a simple impression clear enough of reasonable doubt to form a verdict but yet at the same time so mystical and magical and ''ineffable'' that it cannot thereafter be replayed, explained or rationalised to an increasingly sceptical public. No one can now make sense of it, and this is meant to be okay.
-From that tremendous melee, 12 random citizens, with no particular powers of critical analysis between, carried off a special feat: from the months of technical detail, parry and counterthrust they are supposed to have extracted a simple and indubitable impression clear enough to form a verdict, but yet at the same time so ineffable, mystical and magical that it cannot thereafter be replayed or explained.
+“What happened during the trial” is, apparently, immune to synopsis. Its salient points may not be drawn out, distilled or decanted, in broad strokes or fine, for those who were not there. Like the peace if God, it passeth all understanding. It is immune to mortal analysis. The holy spirit was upon these jurors, they spoke in tongues, their word was made flesh, a guilty soul was condemned and the spirit is gone. We who remain must silently abide.
-“What happened during the trial” is thus immune to summary. Its salient points may not be drawn out, distilled, decanted or played back in broad strokes for those who were not there. Like the peace if God, it passeth all understanding. It is immune to mortal analysis. The holy spirit was upon these people, they spoke in tongues, now their word is made flesh and the spirit is gone. We must silently abide.
+A curious feature of this argument is that itd force depends on what we cannot see. It stays in the shadows. It strikes from the dark. What we cannot apprehend we cannot challenge.
-There is a curious feature of this argument: it depends for its force on what we cannot see. It stays in the shadows, striking from the dark. What we cannot see we cannot fight. It shares this quality with conspiracy and faith. We must subordinate the surface movements to something unseen, base, some ineffable corruption of the human condition.
+This quality of impermeability it shares with two other kinds of intellectual construct: conspiracy theories and sacred faiths. To hold these beliefs we must subordinate the causes of movement across the landscape’s surface to something unseen, inferred machinations beneath it. These are deep impressions, not readily rendered in argument, matters of deep, unmentionable faith; allegiance to certain people whom we place upon a pedestal, and dark imputations of base instinct — primordial corruptions of the human spirit from villainous others, whom we assuredly don’t.
-But explicitly, the criminal law does not work like this. It is — to a fault — rationalist and evidence based. The evidential rules are strict. It is entirely big the surface. Prejudicial suspicions are sponged from the record. Innuendoes are struck down. A concluded case cannot defy comprehension.
+But explicitly, the criminal law does not work like this. It is — to a fault — rational. It is unfailingly evidence-based. Evidence is the be-all and end-all. Admissibility rules are strict. All that is allowed to matter is what lies on the surface. Innuendos and prejudicial suspicions are sponged from the record, unless they can be raised to the surface and put in full view of everyone for inspection and test. Everything is open to audit. ''A concluded case cannot defy comprehension.''
 It is also marked in contrast to the defence case, whether made by Ms. Letby’s actual defence team and their experts or those the unaffiliated journalists, statisticians, doctors, scientists, lawyers and (ahem) windbags who have chosen to speak on her behalf. The defence case is by nature public, detailed, specific articulated, and welcoming of good faith challenge.  It has not had much. The credible challenges that have come back have been either ''formal'' in nature— the rules have been followed, she had her chance, ''ilea iacta est'' — or somehow ''mystical'' — there are things about this process that resist intellectual inquiry and must not be disturbed.