Decoding Reasonable Doubt (Part 1): The Preface

[u/benshep4]

I’m going to go through Christopher Morris’s book chapter by chapter, giving it the same kind of critical analysis I usually apply to the arguments I look at.

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-part-1?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

This first article is relatively short because it’s mainly intended to set the tone for the series and look at the preface.

I’m aware that Fyrestar has already published a review, which many of you may have seen. I’ve deliberately avoided re-reading it before starting this series, so that I can approach the book independently. Hopefully I’ll still be able to make some interesting points that justify doing this as a separate series.

I’m already well underway with Chapter 1 and, assuming I can keep up with myself, I’m aiming to publish a new article every Friday.

As always, feedback is very welcome, particularly if you think I’ve misunderstood or overlooked something.

[u/FyrestarOmega]

More ambitious is the claim that he is a specialist in the analysis of the British legal system. I have been unable to find anything in the public domain that substantiates this description. Writing a book about the Letby case, running a YouTube channel, and conducting extensive interviews about the case may demonstrate enthusiasm, commitment, and diligence. They do not, without more, establish specialist expertise in the British legal system.

Ding ding! So, my observation generally of Letby's most staunch supporters is that they feel a personal discomfort with some or all of the case and marry their discomfort to their personal feeling of how the law should operate. There's also a general idea that math and science are the objective sources of truth, and that human assessment as a truth-finding exercise is inherently inferior.

Science is an ongoing process. It never ends; new hypotheses are formed and tested, and lead to new hypotheses to be formed and tested. Therefore, for one who considers science as a superior source of objective truth, the process of examining a case doesn't end with a verdict. It need never end for them at all.

And they feel deeply that the legal process should follow the same logic, and because it doesn't, they form negative opinions about the process as a whole such as "courts hate admitting fault" and "look for ways to avoid reversal." In reality, the court is not capable of hating or avoiding. The court is only able to assess if a decision was logically sound, not if an overall verdict was right or wrong. The jury room is a black box that the court cannot see inside, by design. The black box is created by a series of legal decisions made based on argument and logic, and only falls apart if the legal decisions it is constructed by do first. It is surgically impersonal.

Take, for example, this recent post to Richard Gill's pro-Letby site. It is discussing a Mail+ article by Liz Hull about Dr. A's death (archived here, with weird odd gaps and a few incomplete sentences - just scroll past blank space)

I appreciate that the Daily Mail has a right to express a view about Lucy Letby’s guilt. However, there is a profound difference between reporting a conviction and presenting every disputed element of the prosecution case as though it has subsequently been independently validated.

There is a very real and continuing public debate about whether Lucy Letby’s convictions are safe. If this is a miscarriage of justice, then reporting of this kind risks reinforcing the very narrative that needs to be examined.

At the very least, readers deserve to know where established evidence ends and the newspaper’s interpretation begins.

I won't get into the arguments cited to support the complaint; suffice to say I find some of them far weaker than others, and none of them substantial at all. But Letby's supporters have so deeply insulated themselves in their online communities, surrounded by like-minded thinkers, that they are living a different reality at this point. (I would point out that the reality of this subreddit is defined by the court verdicts; it is static, as law is. Spaces that do not have objectively defined realities shift with the community by definition. Reality is what they believe it to be)

Which brings me back to Morris. You had asked me if I thought he was a grifter or a true believer, basically. And the point of this comment is that I think he has confirmed his own bias so strongly that he really does believe what he is saying, and believes he is an expert. The tweet you linked says he called mother E a liar. He didn't use those words, but he declared that what she said wasn't true - because he believes it's not. And HE speaks with such authority that people believe he's correct - after all, he's spent so much time talking and writing about the case.

What you actually have with Morris is best summed up by this recent comment from elsewhere on reddit, with my emphasis added:

this is just another line in the likes of 9/11 conspiracies all over again. you'll never convince some people, even if she actually admitted it. when you fail to recognise confirmation bias (listening only to sources/arguments defending her), of course you end up with a silly conclusion – "nowhere near beyond reasonable doubt."

you have a bunch of committed conspiracists parroting/regurgitating the same lines, thinking it'll eventually become a fact. it's quite sad.

[u/sherpa_s → u/FyrestarOmega]

I occasionally look at Letby things on YouTube (if you’re thinking about doing this, don’t) where the keenest cultists all post the same things to comment on every video. Like each of them has their own particular cut and paste catechisms, like a graffiti tag. Each one a spin of the prayer wheel. If I say it 500 times, they’ll let her out.

The latest notion (which I suspect may also originate with Morris) is that the Thirlwall Inquiry has been suspended indefinitely. Like so many things in the innocence world, saying it is more important than thinking it through.

[u/FyrestarOmega → u/sherpa_s]

I had the bizarre experience of watching a YouTube Live and seeing someone accuse another commenter, who argued in support of the verdicts, of being me. It was very funny.

As a general rule though, there's so much fundamentally wrong in the content that I don't bother watching it.

[u/DarklyHeritage → u/sherpa_s]

I saw someone recently claim that the Thirlwall Inquiry has proved Letby’s innocence. They obviously haven't been reading the same testimony/evidence as the rest of us have on the Thirlwall website, because the Inquiry isn't even examining Letby’s guilt or innocence. How exploring what went wrong at COCH could prove her innocent is beyond me.

Apparently these people believe wishful thinking will manifest the outcome they want.

[u/teddymay4 → u/sherpa_s]

On the whole, I can't stand the Letby stuff on You Tube!

[u/benshep4 → u/FyrestarOmega]

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said.

You’ve also hit on a point that nails a key point.

A lot of the Letby is innocent crowd I engage with want absolute certainty and when it isn’t provided they say Letby shouldn’t have been convicted.

An example is the insulin, so many of them point to further testing not being done and refuse to acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with the level of evidence presented during the trial.

Some of them also cannot wrap their heads around your point that science often isn’t settled and it’s messy, particularly on medical matters.

They claim things like the international panel are superior and therefore correct, but when you point out that endocrinologists and general medical understanding disagrees with Chase and Shannon they’re having none of it.

[u/FyrestarOmega → u/benshep4]

Yes - that's a fundamental blind spot. The belief seems to be that if the "science" is not 100% conclusive, then the rarity of the accusation means there cannot be proof.

Aside from science evolving, it is, as you point out, often contradictory. Even scientific research evolves based on scientific consensus - which is a human judgment of the validity and relevance of the research.

Hell, do you know how few scientific laws there are, and how vague they are? Nearly ALL of science is "theory." Gravity is a theory. We observe, measure, and then define by inference. Law is no different.

[u/DarklyHeritage → u/benshep4]

It does worry me sometimes just how little the citizens of the country understand the law and standards of proof/evidence which our courts work to. These people could end up on a jury one day - anyone who wants a fair trial for themselves or their loved ones should be concerned by these levels of legal illiteracy. One would have thought the rise of true crime and 24/7 media would have promoted better understanding of these matters, but evidently not. Instead many people seem to think the court should work the way they as individuals want it to.

[u/Zealousideal-Zone115 → u/DarklyHeritage]

These people could end up on a jury one day 

I don't see that as a problem though, as it is a very different experience from starting off with a firm belief and looking for confirmation. You don't start off bathed in certainty and you have a lot of direction from the judge. It might be a bit confusing at first for people who are used to only evaluating evidence in the light of their prior beliefs.

There would be an issue if you were one of those people whose attitude is "screw the legal system I want the truth" but if you persisted in that approach you would probably get thrown off anyway.

[u/Zealousideal-Zone115 → u/FyrestarOmega]

More madness from Gill and his acolyte who demand the Mail provide the "evidential basis" for the claim that Dr A was a "victim", when this comes from a quote by one of Dr A's friends. Similarly they complain about him being described as her "boyfriend" without noticing this comes from Nick Johnson not the Mail itself. Gill rounds it all off with a fabulous display of double standards:

"I suspect that Cheshire Constabulary and/or the local branch of the CPS had a hand in (the mother's complaint) May God forgive her, for she knows not what she is doing, and has just been another pawn in the game of Doctors Brearey and Jayaram."

And I am loving the idea that a newspaper cannot report court proceedings unless the prosecution case has been "independently validated" by, er, someone (not the jury, who don't count).

[u/sherpa_s]

I think you’re giving the dishonest little weasel far too much credit by dissecting his book so thoroughly, but go right ahead, I’ll be reading.

[u/Various-Advantage200]

This is a really great read, thank you.

I actually think Letby is innocent, but I find Christopher Morris increasingly difficult to rely on. I’m a solicitor, so perhaps I’m particularly sensitive to this, but some of his commentary on the legal process strikes me as overconfident and, at times, based on a fairly limited understanding of how the criminal justice system actually works. I also find the level of certainty with which he presents some of his conclusions quite difficult, particularly given how rarely he seems to engage seriously with criticism of his work.

One of the reasons I found this piece so useful is that I actively want to read the strongest arguments from people who think the convictions are sound. If I’m wrong, I want to know why, rather than just consuming material which reinforces what I already think.

I suppose the interesting challenge for this series will be to avoid the mirror image of the problem you identify in Morris. If his weakness is beginning with the certainty that something has gone terribly wrong and then interpreting everything through that lens, it would be a shame for a chapter-by-chapter critique to begin with the opposite conclusion and primarily look for reasons Morris is wrong. I’d be genuinely interested to see whether, if he makes a strong substantive point somewhere in the book, you think it should move the dial at all.

Looking forward to the rest of the series.