Lucy Letby: the ineffable truth: Difference between revisions

Line 40:

{{drop|W|ild allegations of}} conspiracy fly back and forth. Mainly, they are levelled by commentators for the prosecution, about Ms Letby’s defence team, their vested interests and motivations. By contrast, the miscarriage argument presumes only perfectly ordinary human failings.

But if Mark McDonald is orchestrating a [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy]], he has chosen a pretty rum way to do it.

But if Mark McDonald is orchestrating a [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy]], he has chosen a pretty rum way to do it. Let us just rehearse the main points of a conspiracy:

{{quote|{{Conspiracy theory capsule}}}}

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, ''alea iacta est'' — or somehow ''mystical'' — there are things about this process that resist intellectual inquiry and must not be disturbed.

This is especially perplexing since it is generally the prosecution who must makes the intellectual running. The burden of proof is such that it is the crown, not the defence, that should be best at spelling out the ingredients of its case. That the burden reverses on conviction should not alter this fact

For if the evidence was so compelling, and the crown’s case so immaculate, you would think someone would be able to articulate it. There are any number of erudite criticisms of the law, the application of evidence, the use of statistics, of the crown witnesses’ speculative diagnoses, available in the public domain. Bar one cantankerous lobbyist for the alcohol and tobacco industries — whose professional calling is to champion dubious causes —— no one has managed to mount any explanation of the merits of the crown’s case.

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 {{drop|W|ild allegations of}} conspiracy fly back and forth.  Mainly, they are levelled by commentators for the prosecution, about Ms Letby’s defence team, their vested interests and motivations. By contrast, the miscarriage argument presumes only perfectly ordinary human failings.
-But if Mark McDonald is orchestrating a [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy]], he has chosen a pretty rum way to do it.
+But if Mark McDonald is orchestrating a [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy]], he has chosen a pretty rum way to do it. Let us just rehearse the main points of a conspiracy:
+{{quote|{{Conspiracy theory capsule}}}}
 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, ''alea iacta est'' — or somehow ''mystical'' — there are things about this process that resist intellectual inquiry and must not be disturbed.
-This is especially perplexing since it is generally the prosecution who must makes the intellectual running. The burden of proof is such that it is the crown, not the defence, that should be  best at spelling out the ingredients of its case. That the burden reverses on conviction should not alter this fact
+This is especially perplexing since it is generally the prosecution who must makes the intellectual running. The burden of proof is such that it is the crown, not the defence, that should be best at spelling out the ingredients of its case. That the burden reverses on conviction should not alter this fact
 For if the evidence was so compelling, and the crown’s case so immaculate, you would think someone would be able to articulate it. There are any number of erudite criticisms of the law, the application of evidence, the use of statistics, of the crown witnesses’ speculative diagnoses, available in the public domain. Bar one cantankerous lobbyist for the alcohol and tobacco industries — whose professional calling is to champion dubious causes —— no one has managed to mount any explanation of the merits of the crown’s case.