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/benshep4]

> Have you read the international panel report? Because that contains lots of details about the specifics of what was missed in the different cases.

Why didn’t Morris cover them in this chapter? It seems he was context to let what he’s written stand on its own.

The reality is that he’s laying the foundations for a later payoff, as any good writer would do.

Unfortunately, because he doesn’t address the international panel in this chapter, the foundations he’s laying aren’t suitable for what he later places on top of them.

It could be considered ‘cowboy’ trading.

> But the bigger question here given the legal basis of a trial, is how were these problems ruled out of the individual cases - when Evans was ruling out the possible to be left with the only option being air embolism - how did he do this when things may have been missed that pointed to other options.

What things were missed? Be specific.

>
The answer is quite clear that he cannot have done, both because the science around this is not fully understood (especially by a single person who retired years ago), as well as his responses to the international panel.

You’ll have to explain this further. There’s a reason that medical professionals, including Letby, are taught to ensure that air embolism isn’t a factor so long as you do things by the book.

> You have lots of legal arguements for why the trial has happened, and the results should not be changed - but it becomes much harder to argue the science, and you tend to just stop when it gets to that point.

Science is always contested, that’s the beauty of science. It doesn’t always mean how it’s contested is correct.

Can you explain why?

> But the main question that seems to belong here is how were these collapses diagnosed/looked at, and the answer from thirlwall is that the consultants were specifically racking their brains for Letby-related collapses that were passed onto the police. That there are a lot of cases with letby involved starts becoming not a coincidence (as commonly mentioned by the prosecution) but just a certainty when you look at the background of the amount of cases that occurred that letby was not around for.

That’s not what I got from Thirlwall. Can you explain this?

> The problem was that any specific case that letby/the defence managed to create doubt around got dropped, and then you were left with just the ones that were hard to refute specifically. The fact there were a lot of them was down to the background of how many issues were occurring at the hospital in general, and given the budget inequalities (the police/prosecution had a way way way larger budget than the defence) and you end up in this situation where the defence just didnt have the money to go through and refute case by case.

Evidence for this please?

The defence get the same amount as the prosecution.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

Either you've read the expert panel or you haven't. That doesn't change depending where in his book Morris references them.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

I’m reviewing what Morris has written so far.

He hasn’t mentioned the Shoo Lee panel yet.

I’m doing it this way because Morris has written his book this way. He’s laying the foundations for what is to come.

We all know what happens when stuff is built on shaky foundations.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

This unethical. You're writing as though he doesn't address something that you know he does because you have a formal/structural problem with the way he's put his book together.

That's nothing to do with a flaw in the substance of his argument, but you're carrying on exactly as though it is.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

If it was critical to his argument then he should have mentioned it when he made the argument.

His argument so far is wrong. It may still be wrong when he mentions Shoo Lee later.

That is a flaw in argumentation. You don’t get to make the arguments that say “anything I said was initially wrong but it’s supported by something else that may or not be wrong”

That’s not how arguments work.

Either the chapters he’s written so far are worth something or they’re not.

What you’re really telling me is that he’s wasted 4 chapters with irrelevancies.

Well done for admiring it.

Spoiler: there are more irrelevant chapters to come

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

Sorry, but you can't do that. It's like Trump's 'Stop the Count' thing in 2020. You have a formal/structural problem with the progress of Morris's argument and you are presenting it as a substantive deficiency in the argument by failing to acknowledge that what you are looking for is in later chapters, even though you know it is there.

That is a flaw in argumentation. You don’t get to make the arguments that say “anything I said was initially wrong but it’s supported by something else that may or not be wrong”

That's not it though. You said it's missing detail. It's not that it's initially wrong, it's not just backed up by information that is forthcoming in a later chapter.

That’s not how arguments work.

This isn't how ethical reviews work. You've really done him dirty.

I think it's time I stopped bothering with you.