Ive been following this case for years - the evidence that has now come to light at last means her conviction is completely unsafe. She should never have been convicted - she was a convenient scapegoat for the failings of the Neo natal unit and the evidence convicting her is circumstantial and now it can be proved that these deaths can be explained ...no babies were murdered and it cannot be proved beyond doubt she murdered them. This will play out as the biggest miscarriage of justice od modern times IMO
Couldn’t agree more. These experts are quite simply more credentialed than those who testified for the prosecution. The two ladies on that Daily Mail podcast juxtapose the findings of the new expert panel with reports from the trial. But these experts have read the court transcripts and all the evidence before coming to these new and devastating conclusions. So it’s not quite accurate to say that this evidence got tested adequately at trial, for the defence did not call on such well qualified experts to give evidence that no murders actually occurred.
The <modsnip - refers to a removed post with an unapproved source> and others in the media keep repeating the claim that the statistical evidence is beside the point but they’re completely missing the point. Without that, there would be no investigation. And I believe a preponderance of experts in statistics have pointed out that this investigation was launched on the basis of a ‘statistical abomination’. This means circumstantial evidence must be weighed extraordinarily carefully, given all kinds of narratives can obviously be spun out of confirmation bias. We know how powerful these biases are; we’re afflicted by them constantly in our day to day lives, no one is immune. Look at how tribalism is driving everyone and their uncle insane online these days. If you tell me one of my colleagues has been in attendance at 15 baby collapses for example, while that might be hardly statistically more improbably than getting a good win on the horses, which happens to thousands of people every day, it very quickly wouldn’t feel that way, and this would colour and distort everything thereafter.
If there’s no statistical basis for her guilt and now we’re hearing from the best of the best in experts who have considered the evidence, including those at trial, what are we left with?
Her own testimony? Looking up details about the parents? Caught red handed… doing what exactly? Being in a superb mood contemporaneously to all these deaths in her private life? It genuinely feels to me like you could have reams of evidence like this and the conviction would still be unsafe because it no longer really amounts to circumstantial at that point, it’s basically negligible imo.
When she writes *Im guilty* *I’m an evil person* in the same diary she also writes that she’s innocent and did not kill the babies, far from being compelling circumstantial evidence, it actually seems rather exculpatory. Given the timeline, in which she’s being accused of these crimes and attending therapy… would a serial baby murderer be guilt tripping herself half insane in her journal or is that more likely the behaviour of a wrongly accused person? For me, the answer is obvious and this was a lightbulb moment in my thinking on this case.
One of the key establishment voices in the legal profession Joshua Rosenberg has now writing an opinion column in which he states he’s changed his mind and that he thinks a retrial is in order. And I can only see things snowballing from here.
To repeat: I don’t know if she is or is not guilty. But the case against her looks now to be a mess and for whatever reason she clearly did not get an adequate defence at trial. That much I think is becoming very clear now.
This is an insanely emotive case. I hope we find out the truth for the families and I think at this point there has to be more than reasonable doubt that the conviction is unsafe.
<modsnip - political>
My bad if references to politics are not allowed.
