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?

  • streetlights@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    This article doesn’t explain exactly why the statistical anomaly should be inadmissable in court.

    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.

    • steeznson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.