3 ms·
To a large extent they didn't have to involve statistics. There was plenty of better evidence in the Letby case. However, the public perception around the time
by crote 3y ago
To a large extent they didn't have to involve statistics. There was plenty of better evidence in the Letby case.
However, the public perception around the time of the trial was substantially different. Especially early on, the media focused strongly on the fact that it "could not possibly be a coincidence". Reading the trial coverage I got a very strong feeling of déjà vu, seeing the coverage pretty much mirroring the Lucia de Berk case.
Considering the mountain of other evidence in the Letby case, I highly doubt it was a miscarriage of justice. But I definitely agree with the Statistical Society that just because something looks like a duck, it doesn't have to be a duck.
- mrangle 3y agoBetter evidence is irrelevant to her jury trial if false evidence was included in the form of misrepresented stats. Because that's how trial by jury works. She would get a retrial, at minimum, if a judiciary body were to be convinced that the prosecution introduced false evidence.
- crote 3y agoFrom what I understand, they did not even attempt to introduce misrepresented stats as evidence in the Latby case - it simply wasn't needed. All the other evidence was already enough to get her convicted, so having better evidence led to the statistics becoming irrelevant.