Today's discussion about the news

Its a well written article. However, the thrust of it is statistical weaknesses in the prosecution, and there are no numbers to illustrate this; just a lot of frequentlys, and not uncommons. I also note the defence had options they didn't take up.

In a sense the article is the counterpoint to the prosecution, but not more balanced for that. You have an expert criticising another expert for disagreeing with them. Then pointing out that's the problem with experts. Do you see the issue with the article when looked at that way?

Unfortunately for her, but for good reason, new evidence is not new arguments.

Reminds me of the Sally Clark case. She was convicted of killing her two babies on the basis of the probability of two 'cot deaths' in the same family being 'too low'. Her conviction was overturned years later on second appeal, partly because the '1 in 73m' probability claim was completely unsubstantiated.

Well I largely agree, hence why I bang on so much about shitty FT tweets.

The expert witness evidence isn't questionable in the sense that cheap Chinese rim brake wheels are questionable. It is more that there is no debate that the jury gets to hear between witnesses - only between a lawyer and a witness.

In theory, the witnesses already have a duty before the court rather than to one side or the other (not sure this came out in the article that well). All that said, the notion of "hot tubbing" is quite a good one, because it would better reflect the sort of divergent opinions that a group of experts can have, while all being broadly correct.

Not going to happen though.

------

On a related slight tangent, I'm currently listening to a very detailed podcast from New Zealand following an inquest into the drowning of a 4 year boy old a few years ago. Its up to about 40 episodes now. (What can I say - hearing about death is relaxing and sends me to sleep at night.)

There is a lot of testimony from pathologists and child psychologists and forensic experts etc - all of whom are speculating because the plod decided within half an hour that it was an accidental death and didn't investigate anything properly.

It is interesting how these experts differ in terms of their levels of caution in how definitive they are willing to be based on limited information.

Also interesting that two of the three pathologists have tacitly admitted that their findings will depend to a great extent on what they are told about the circumstances of the death in advance.

There is a hint of this in the Private Eye article, where it talks about all of the null findings from pathologists - the article also says there were no suspicions raised in advance.

What it doesn't say clearly, but does infer, is that the absence of suspicion does colour how the autopsy plays out, what they look for and how hard they look for it. e.g. None of the children were tested for exogenous insulin, because there was no suggestion that it might have been needed.

The Telegraph is not a newspaper.

They want it to be a war on Christianity.

Dontcha know that we are emulating the U.S.? Christian = good, non-Christian = bad.

Except half-arsed as usual so we use knives instead of guns. Thankfully, I suppose.

Actually you might be surprised what is still being espoused as religious dogma. Remember the snafu about Kate Forbes, then SNP leadership candidate, and her views on gay marriage? I know three other people in the same church with analogous views, plus a whole sub cult within my extended family who are members of a church with similar teaching in England and Wales. That church is still hard six day creationist.

So from a particular person's point of view, all sorts of things can be hung on their religious sensitivity.

And they walk among us. 8-/

Sure. He can believe whatever he likes. He was sacked for having a public row with his boss.

Which was exactly my point - the Telegraph are just trying to stoke culture wars rather than report news accurately. Hence "It's not a newspaper".

Europeans just love a technocrat when the shit hits the fan don't they?

Ah yes, of course, Macron was thinking about snubbing Britain when he appointed Barnier. Of course he would. Those Frenchies, eh, what are they like?

Why's that?

Ah yes, The Telegraph. Of course. The arbiter of truth and sanity.

I can't quite put my finger on why a Telegraph 'news' diet might not necessarily lead to a balanced world view...

Nah, that story just doesn't sit well. 😉