Archive link here: https://archive.ph/mwFp9
Is the Royal Statistical Society debasing itself by pouring doubt on our judicial system, or is there something to it?
Archive link here: https://archive.ph/mwFp9
Is the Royal Statistical Society debasing itself by pouring doubt on our judicial system, or is there something to it?
Were they asking for it to be inadmissible? My take was the RSS are implying the court allowed the jury to be misled as to its significance by not having a statistician on hand to explain it. It’s almost an exact replay of what happened in the Lucia De Berk case, later overturned and since described as “the greatest miscarriage of justice” in the Netherlands. Worth a read if you’re interested.
I think the subtext of it was that she could have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice if this one piece of evidence was invalidated. However from reading about the case it just seems like on piece of circumstantial evidence as opposed to the lynchpin for the case.