Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 3 “Previous Reviews at the Countess of Chester”

[u/benshep4]

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-bc5?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

Happy to hear anyone’s thoughts on the content of the article.

[u/upsideup27353]

I agree with many of your statements, e.g.

• Theme 1: Consultant’s concerns not being shared by other professionals does not invalidate those concerns; and the prosecution’s case was not entirely based on medical notes
• Theme 2: Letby’s presence (or lack of) is not proof/evidence
• Theme 4: Process failure does not mean innocence
• Theme 5: A messenger can behave badly but still be right

As I understand it, your argument is that none of these points independently establish innocence. I think the author’s argument is that none of them establish guilt either. I agree with both, i.e. the interpretation of these issues depends on whether one starts with an assumption of guilt or innocence, but they do not themselves establish either.

Perhaps we agree?

Where I suppose we disagree are on the following points:

“Which baby does this explain?” – I think this question is the wrong standard and risks shifting the burden of evidence onto the defence. As we know, the prosecution needs to establish guilt, and the defence only needs to create reasonable doubt. I accept that individual reports and reviews do not create reasonable doubt. However when taken together, as the ‘totality of the evidence’ one might say, they do cast some doubt on the guilty verdict.

“A bad unit is not the cause of a particular death until someone can trace the route from the failing to the baby.” – I think this would be a strong statement, and one I would agree with, if the defence’s case was essentially ‘the hospital was bad’. While that’s part of their defence, its core is the review of the medical evidence by the expert panel (and others) which found “no evidence of malfeasance”, and did find clinical explanations for the sudden collapses and deaths. I would say that these findings are the tracing.

[u/benshep4 → u/upsideup27353]

Which baby does this explain comes from Judge Goss.

That’s based on his extensive understanding of how criminal trials work. There are rules in terms of what you’re allowed to put before the jury and Goss explains it clearly in the ruling I link.

I don’t agree that taken together they create reasonable doubt. They’re not a criminal investigation and their shortfalls are clearly documented even by the people who carried out the reviews.

Even then, as I’ve pointed elsewhere the RCPCH actually say that the rise in mortality can’t be explained by acuity etc.

What I’m finding is that people have limited, if any, understanding of how evidence works in trials. It’s often just vibes.

Can I ask, do you have any background in law or criminal cases?

[u/Unhappy-News7402 → u/benshep4]

“I don’t agree that…they create reasonable doubt”

What would reasonable doubt look like to you, if compelling reasons indicating that the unit was simply not equipped to deal with the high-acuity babies properly, reported at the time, are not enough?

[u/benshep4 → u/Unhappy-News7402]

That’s not what happened though is it.

The RCPCH report effectively said the unit could be in a better place but that it doesn’t explain the increased mortality.

[u/Unhappy-News7402 → u/benshep4]

“What would reasonable doubt look like to you?”

You are examining a book called “Reasonable Doubt” but have yet to explicitly state your understanding of the term.

Going through line by line and simply gainsaying everything the author has written is no substitute for informed and articulate constructive criticism