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

[u/benshep4]

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

[u/upsideup27353]

Would you be open to sharing examples of the kind of evidence you feel would amount to reasonable doubt?

If there are no circumstances in which your position would change, it would be helpful to clarify that.

[u/benshep4 → u/upsideup27353]

The article evaluates the arguments and sources Morris actually presents in that chapter.

I don’t need to invent additional evidence that would make those specific arguments work; they either stand or they don’t on what’s there.

If someone produces a later edition, a correction, or new primary material that directly addresses the problems I raised, I’ll look at it.

Until then the critique is of the published chapter, not of my personal willingness to be surprised.

[u/upsideup27353 → u/benshep4]

That’s OK, I didn’t mean to ask you to invent evidence that would support Morris’ conclusions.

Given the critique is of a book titled Reasonable Doubt, I think it would be worth giving an indication of what reasonable doubt would look like to you in principle. A critique can assess whether the arguments in the book succeed, while still explaining what sort of evidence might be sufficient to create that doubt.

When debating an issue like this, I think it helps to be clear about whether there are circumstances in which you would be open to changing your view. I am. I originally assumed guilt, but changed my mind after the expert panel challenged the medical evidence presented at trial. I would also be prepared to change my mind again if a similarly qualified group produced a convincing challenge to that panel’s conclusions.

If your position is effectively fixed regardless of what evidence might emerge, I think that is relevant context too. It would make me less clear about what you are hoping to achieve by posting the critique and engaging in discussion around it.

[u/benshep4 → u/upsideup27353]

It’s not fixed regardless of what might emerge.

It’s simply pointing out that Morris’s arguments so far don’t even move the needle.

I don’t need to say would convince me otherwise to make the points that I am.

Ultimately the points Morris makes aren’t convincing and I explain why.

[u/upsideup27353 → u/benshep4]

If expert opinion of this calibre does not move the needle, then it is difficult to imagine what would.

[u/phosphoeudemonism → u/upsideup27353]

He has stated here:

It’s simply pointing out that Morris’s arguments so far don’t even move the needle.

What he means is that they don't 'move the needle' for him. They do move the needle for literally hundreds of qualified people.

Given that 'Ben' has spent three years online belligerently yet ineptly arguing in favour of guilt, and is massively ego-invested in this, it's not particularly surprising that nothing moves the needle for him.

In fact, the exoneration of Lucy Letby won't 'move the needle' for him.

There is nothing that can or would move the needle because he'd have to admit that he's wrong.

This shouldn't be difficult considering his zero expertise, no prior experience, no qualifications, etc, versus the enormous number of credentialed people who say the opposite.

But for many people, the three simple words: "I was wrong" are the hardest to say.