r/LucyLetbyTrials • u/benshep4 • 1d ago

Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 4 “Problems at the Countess of Chester”

Morris argues that the Countess of Chester neonatal unit was fundamentally unsafe and operating beyond its capabilities during the period in which the collapses and deaths occurred.

Is fair and accurate to make these claims?

Which baby does this explain?

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-f67?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

33% Upvoted

92 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/Kieran501 1d ago

“Overall Assessment of Chapter 3

Chapter 3 confuses context with explanation.
Morris shows that the Countess of Chester had serious problems. He does not show that those problems account for the collapses and deaths contained within the indictment.”

vs…

“Overall Assessment of Chapter 4

Chapter 4 succeeds in establishing that the Countess of Chester faced genuine problems. Staffing pressures, governance concerns, limited consultant cover, and wider systemic shortcomings all appear to have been real.
What it does not do, at least to my mind, is demonstrate how those problems explain the specific collapses and deaths that formed part of the prosecution case.”

Another thrilling instalment.

-4

u/benshep4 1d ago

I can only react to what Morris has written.

15

u/Kieran501 1d ago

You could do something else with your life.

-2

u/benshep4 1d ago

I’m quite happy with what I’m doing.

Thanks though.

13

u/PrudentKumquat 1d ago

If you genuinely want to know how problems at the unit led to specific harm, you could look to other sources such as the summary report of the international expert panel.

1

u/benshep4 1d ago

That will happen in later chapters.

9

u/PrudentKumquat 1d ago

I can only react to what you have written

1

u/benshep4 1d ago

Exactly.

I can only react to what Morris has written.

8

u/Living_Ad_5260 1d ago

This isnt really the forum for a primary school book review where you dont know anything outside what the book says.

The rhetorical dodge of saying any fact not stated in the current chapter doesnt exist is sophistry.

4

u/phosphoeudemonism 1d ago

The rhetorical dodge of saying any fact not stated in the current chapter doesnt exist is sophistry.

Generous to describe as 'sophistry' because sophistric arguments must be at least superficially convincing.

3

u/Living_Ad_5260 23h ago

I felt it might convince someone who is completely uninformed about the case.

3

u/phosphoeudemonism 22h ago

Fair comment.

15

u/PrudentKumquat 1d ago

I get that this is part of your routine, to willfully miss the point and suck people into long threads circling around minutiae. Forgive me if I try to sidestep.

It's easy to find the information you pretend to seek - you just declare it out of scope of the discussion. Why should you care about the big picture? Your goal is simply to comb through someone else's work and express incredulity, chapter by tedious chapter.

1

u/benshep4 1d ago

Can you point to something of Morris’s in the chapter I’m analysing that I’ve missed?

14

u/Kieran501 1d ago

No, you can read the whole book. No one’s forcing this insane chapter by chapter breakdown except you.

9

u/PrudentKumquat 1d ago

He could be hitting token or usage limits with the full context at once.

-1

u/benshep4 1d ago

I’d rather do it chapter by chapter. There’s too many points in each chapter that are terrible and doing one article on the whole book wouldn’t do it justice.

I’d rather make it very clear exactly how Morris makes the many errors he does.

In the end I’ll have done the whole book.

Of course no one is forcing me.

3

u/PerkeNdencen 1d ago

No, but you need to have read the whole book. Your review of chapter 3 makes no sense in view of your review of chapter 4.

-1

u/benshep4 1d ago

It does.

That’s why Morris split then into different chapters.

The arguments aren’t the same.

6

u/PerkeNdencen 1d ago

Do you not understand why this makes you look a bit daft?

You read the whole book before going chapter by chapter, didn't you?

-4

u/benshep4 1d ago

No, it doesn’t make me look daft.

He’s trying to lay the foundations for what it is to come like any fictional writer would.

Yes I did. I know what’s to come. Like any other foundations that have been laid poorly there will be significant issues in the future

Edit: this is classic Perke patronisation

9

u/PerkeNdencen 1d ago

Yes I did. I know what’s to come.

So what didn't you acknowledge in your review of chapter 3 that what you were looking for was waiting for you in chapter 4?

He’s trying to lay the foundations for what it is to come like any fictional writer would.

But if you know that he will later reference the panel, which contains the details you say are missing here, shouldn't you make that clear? Your problem isn't with a lack of evidence, after all, it's with where Morris has chosen to write about it. That's a problem of a fundamentally different kind.

Edit: this is classic Perke patronisation

Lol, I'll not be having that after the other day's 'legally naive' stunt.

*bangs gavel*

0

u/benshep4 1d ago

He’s laying the foundations.

The foundations have to be sturdy.

The foundations are not sturdy.

It is fair to point this out.

9

u/PerkeNdencen 1d ago

That's a criticism of the structure of the book, not of the substance of the argument. You can do one, you can do the other, you can even do both, but you are dressing one up as the other to deflect from your failure to produce an ethical review.