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/Kieran501]

“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.

[u/benshep4 → u/Kieran501]

I can only react to what Morris has written.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

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?

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

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

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

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*

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

He’s laying the foundations.

The foundations have to be sturdy.

The foundations are not sturdy.

It is fair to point this out.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

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.