84,181
edits
Lucy Letby: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
But even in the courts we get it wrong sometimes. | But even in the courts we get it wrong sometimes. | ||
====The medical misadventure cases==== | ====The medical misadventure cases==== | ||
{{Drop|I|ndeed, cases involving}} medical misadventure, where no direct evidence and which rely on expert evidence, especially as to statistics or “science”<ref>The | {{Drop|I|ndeed, cases involving}} medical misadventure, where no direct evidence and which rely on expert evidence, especially as to statistics or “science”<ref>The “junk science” of “forensic odontology” (comparing bite marks), blood spatter analysis and hair microscopy are a recurring case of injustice: Chris Fabricant, ''{{Plainlink|https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/B09PF98JST?|Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System}}''.</ref> Sally Clark, Daniela Poggiali and Lucia de Berk are but three recent examples with strikingly similar facts patterns. We should not take concerns about statistics lightly. | ||
Where there is no “direct” evidence, the form and procedure becomes all the more important. | Where there is no “direct” evidence, the form and procedure becomes all the more important. | ||