Her conviction has never sat right with me.
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
25 points (96.3% liked)
United Kingdom
4063 readers
183 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Same here. I don't know that she's innocent, but there didn't seem to be any hard evidence. It's terrible for the parents to have this certainty over the deaths taken away, but I expect it will get overturned eventually.
This article doesn't explain exactly why the statistical anomaly should be inadmissable in court. She was a common denominator in being on shift when a large number of infants died on the ward. From my understanding of the case too, various colleagues had been raising suspicions about her for several years; one consultant testified that he walked in on her standing over a baby that was in medical distress while only watching and not taking any actions to assist it. I think there were unexplained results in the autopsies too.
It seems reasonable to have the shift rota as one part of the case against her given that it was more like corroborating evidence instead of the centerpiece for the prosecution.
This article doesn't explain exactly why the statistical anomaly should be inadmissable in court.
Were they asking for it to be inadmissible? My take was the RSS are implying the court allowed the jury to be misled as to its significance by not having a statistician on hand to explain it. It's almost an exact replay of what happened in the Lucia De Berk case, later overturned and since described as "the greatest miscarriage of justice" in the Netherlands. Worth a read if you're interested.
I think the subtext of it was that she could have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice if this one piece of evidence was invalidated. However from reading about the case it just seems like on piece of circumstantial evidence as opposed to the lynchpin for the case.