4 ms·
That's how the new yorker story presented it, yes, but there is good reason to doubt this sequence of events.
by lofenfew 2y ago
That's how the new yorker story presented it, yes, but there is good reason to doubt this sequence of events.
- Tao3300 2y agoFor example...
- rich_sasha 2y agoInteresting, could you share some? I just read the New Yorker article in detail, and it did seem like a lot of circumstantial evidence and nothing direct. It reads eerily like a misunderstanding of statistics and an old guy (the main pediatrics expert) making up conjectures and presenting them as evidence. But then I don't know much about the case so I can't be sure. Would be great to hear the counterpoints.
- lofenfew 2y agoI don't know either, I'm just making a reliable statement about any piece of journalism.
- Tao3300 2y agoGoing from "good reason" to "because journalism" is a totally airheaded take.
- lofenfew 2y agoYour original comment presented it as if you'd come up with it or evaluated it yourself, rather than merely repeating a biased story someone else wrote. This seems far more dishonest than anything I did.
- qingcharles 2y agoRight, that's the whole problem with this case -- that really both options are possible. It was up to the jury to decide on the evidence presented to them and they decided to find guilt in the Defendant. Obviously, in any case, if the evidence presented (especially in a closely-balanced case like this) isn't the whole picture (or a biased picture), then the jury will always be working at a disadvantage. It's defense counsel's job to make sure any exculpatory evidence is presented.