Discussion:
Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins
(too old to reply)
Derek Hornby
2006-02-17 18:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins his appeal against the GMC's decision to strike
him off the medical register.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/4720334.stm

Expert witnesses in a court case will no longer be held to account for
their opinions, following a ruling today that has seen Professor Sir Roy
Meadow restored to the medical register.

The consultant paediatrician had been an expert witness in a number of
high profile cases including that of Donna Anthony, Angela Canning and
Trupti Patel, but it was his evidence in the case of Sally Clark that
led him to be found guilty by the GMC of gross professional misconduct,
and struck off.

Today Mr Justice Collins reversed that decision, and in doing so set a
new legal precedent. will change, fundamentally, court cases which use expert
witnesses?
Derek
The Todal
2006-02-17 19:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Hornby
Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins his appeal against the GMC's decision to strike
him off the medical register.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/4720334.stm
Expert witnesses in a court case will no longer be held to account for
their opinions, following a ruling today that has seen Professor Sir Roy
Meadow restored to the medical register.
Rubbish. Whoever wrote that, has no understanding of the law and has done a
cut and paste job without doing enough research.
Anthony R. Gold
2006-02-17 19:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Derek Hornby
Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins his appeal against the GMC's decision to strike
him off the medical register.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/4720334.stm
Expert witnesses in a court case will no longer be held to account for
their opinions, following a ruling today that has seen Professor Sir Roy
Meadow restored to the medical register.
Rubbish. Whoever wrote that, has no understanding of the law and has done a
cut and paste job without doing enough research.
The cited article appears to be fair and balanced but the words "no longer
be held to account" were written by Mr. Hornby whose legal and research
credentials you accurately characterised.

Tony
Derek Hornby
2006-02-17 20:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Rubbish. Whoever wrote that, has no understanding of the law and has done a
cut and paste job without doing enough research.
Oh I don't think so, Meadows did say:

"Children can only be protected from abuse if those who suspect abuse are
able to give their honest opinion without fear of retribution.
This is an important decision for paediatricians and all doctors, nurses,
teachers and other professionals who may have to express difficult and
sometimes unpopular opinions in the course of giving evidence in court.
They should be able to do so without the fear of prosecution by the GMC
or other professional regulators."

So care to explain what he means!

Yes he has the rifht to exprtess a *honest* opinion in court, but
what if such opinions are either misleading, or totally wrong.
That means it's not a honest opinion then!

I still feel the GMC was correct.
Note the GMC says:
"Where there has been serious judicial criticism, we have sought to act to
protect the public interest from experts who fall significantly
short of accepted standards."
Note also:

The GMC had said evidence given by Sir Roy in Mrs Clark's case had been
misleading.

Derek
Ben
2006-02-17 21:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Hornby
So care to explain what he means!
The meaning from posters on your comments is that you have
misunderstood the comments in the article both replies to you fall
short of saying directly that you are thick
Periander
2006-02-17 22:27:28 UTC
Permalink
"Derek Hornby" <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:dt5cii$699$***@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:

...
Post by Derek Hornby
"Children can only be protected from abuse if those who suspect abuse
are able to give their honest opinion without fear of retribution.
"Honest Opinion", the first word is I believe very significant.
Post by Derek Hornby
I still feel the GMC was correct.
Fair enough, I still think that they acted like a bunch of cunts and acted
to scapgoat Prf Meadow for no reason other than to score a few brownie
points with the tabloids.

Compare and contrast to what they did with in the case of the liar and
incompetant San Lazero.
--
Regards or otherwise,

Periander
Paul Robson
2006-02-17 22:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Periander
Fair enough, I still think that they acted like a bunch of cunts and acted
to scapgoat Prf Meadow for no reason other than to score a few brownie
points with the tabloids.
Compare and contrast to what they did with in the case of the liar and
incompetant San Lazero.
Fair point. Meadow is discredited really for going outside his area of
expertise.

San Lazaro simply told quite deliberate lies.

Is there a reason why she can't be prosecuted for PCJ ?
Periander
2006-02-17 22:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Robson
Post by Periander
Fair enough, I still think that they acted like a bunch of cunts and
acted to scapgoat Prf Meadow for no reason other than to score a few
brownie points with the tabloids.
Compare and contrast to what they did with in the case of the liar
and incompetant San Lazero.
Fair point. Meadow is discredited really for going outside his area of
expertise.
San Lazaro simply told quite deliberate lies.
Is there a reason why she can't be prosecuted for PCJ ?
No but considering the damage that was done it's probably best to let
sleeping dogs lie.
--
Regards or otherwise,

Periander
Paul Robson
2006-02-18 06:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Periander
Post by Paul Robson
San Lazaro simply told quite deliberate lies.
Is there a reason why she can't be prosecuted for PCJ ?
No but considering the damage that was done it's probably best to let
sleeping dogs lie.
I'm not sure I agree.

I think a public crucifixion of San Lazaro - which is richly deserved -
would act as a deterrent to those types who think they are gods because
of the power 'think of the children' gives them - and they behave as if
they know it.

One of the problems (as with Rochdale for example), is that no-one
actually ever takes any responsibility for anything at all in this area,
so the mistakes are simply repeated.

I don't know how much you've worked with these people, but they do think
they are above the law. I have been told by one such "Child Protection
Law supercedes all other laws", for example.

I doubt Lillie and Reed would object to San Lazaro's prosecution.
Cynic
2006-02-19 16:55:16 UTC
Permalink
On 17 Feb 2006 22:58:26 GMT, Periander
Post by Periander
Post by Paul Robson
Is there a reason why she can't be prosecuted for PCJ ?
No but considering the damage that was done it's probably best to let
sleeping dogs lie.
Why? I cannot see that it would cause any *further* damage.
--
Cynic
Periander
2006-02-19 22:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
On 17 Feb 2006 22:58:26 GMT, Periander
Post by Periander
Post by Paul Robson
Is there a reason why she can't be prosecuted for PCJ ?
No but considering the damage that was done it's probably best to let
sleeping dogs lie.
Why? I cannot see that it would cause any *further* damage.
In practice it would mean opening old wounds forthe kids, who I hope have
by now got over the abuse they suffered at her hands (and yes I do regard
unnecessary intimate medical examinations as abusive), speak to any rape
victim, going though court is like being raped again.

As for her, I couldn't give a damn one way or another but it's not really
about her.
--
Regards,

Periander
Cynic
2006-02-20 12:55:21 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Feb 2006 22:56:57 GMT, Periander
Post by Periander
Post by Cynic
Post by Periander
No but considering the damage that was done it's probably best to let
sleeping dogs lie.
Why? I cannot see that it would cause any *further* damage.
In practice it would mean opening old wounds forthe kids, who I hope have
by now got over the abuse they suffered at her hands (and yes I do regard
unnecessary intimate medical examinations as abusive), speak to any rape
victim, going though court is like being raped again.
I understand your point, but I do not believe it is applicable in this
case. There would be absolutely no need to call the children as
witnesses or involve them in any way whatsoever in the process. Their
names could be kept out of the public domain, and the case is old
enough that they would not be connected to it.

The publicity *might* cause a certain amount of anguish for the
children involved, but IMO any that is caused would be pretty small,
and far outweighed by the relief it would provide to Lillie and Reed.
Post by Periander
As for her, I couldn't give a damn one way or another but it's not really
about her.
It is about experts who decide to go on a mission rather than giving
objective and factual evidence. It is a travesty of justice IMO that
Meadow got pilloried and had his character smeared all over the
tabloids, whilst she gets away with a *deliberate* pack of lies that
were 1000's of times worse that Meadow was guilty of and yet she
remained pretty much anonymous. The benefit would be in discouraging
experts from climbing on bandwagons instead of making honest reports
when people's lives are hanging in the balance. Which would in turn
reduce the probability of future abuses to children in the way you
describe.
--
Cynic
Cynic
2006-02-19 16:54:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:56:40 +0000, Paul Robson
Post by Paul Robson
Fair point. Meadow is discredited really for going outside his area of
expertise.
San Lazaro simply told quite deliberate lies.
Is there a reason why she can't be prosecuted for PCJ ?
She should have been sent to prison IMO.
--
Cynic
Helen
2006-02-17 23:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Periander
...
Post by Derek Hornby
"Children can only be protected from abuse if those who suspect abuse
are able to give their honest opinion without fear of retribution.
"Honest Opinion", the first word is I believe very significant.
Post by Derek Hornby
I still feel the GMC was correct.
Fair enough, I still think that they acted like a bunch of cunts and acted
to scapgoat Prf Meadow for no reason other than to score a few brownie
points with the tabloids.
Compare and contrast to what they did with in the case of the liar and
incompetant San Lazero.
Just because they were very,very wrong in the case of San Lazero, doesn't
mean they were wrong in the case of Meadows.

The judge, in the case of the Meadows' case, once again, like Meadows,
doesn't understand statistics.

Meadows did not state a statistic from a report. He took a statistic from a
report and then applied a wrong statistical technique to it It is a
statistical method that any first year undergraduate of any 'not maths, but
numbers and stats needed' degree needs to have.
Periander
2006-02-17 23:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Helen
Post by Periander
...
Post by Derek Hornby
"Children can only be protected from abuse if those who suspect
abuse are able to give their honest opinion without fear of
retribution.
"Honest Opinion", the first word is I believe very significant.
Post by Derek Hornby
I still feel the GMC was correct.
Fair enough, I still think that they acted like a bunch of cunts and
acted to scapgoat Prf Meadow for no reason other than to score a few
brownie points with the tabloids.
Compare and contrast to what they did with in the case of the liar
and incompetant San Lazero.
Just because they were very,very wrong in the case of San Lazero,
doesn't mean they were wrong in the case of Meadows.
The judge, in the case of the Meadows' case, once again, like Meadows,
doesn't understand statistics.
Meadows did not state a statistic from a report. He took a statistic
from a report and then applied a wrong statistical technique to it It
is a statistical method that any first year undergraduate of any 'not
maths, but numbers and stats needed' degree needs to have.
Quite nevertheless as a clinician Prof Meadow is recognised as a world wide
authority in several areas. When you read his works relating to child abuse
(well at least the ones I have read) its clear from the very measured terms
he uses and the balanced viewpoints he offers he is far from the screeming
jealot many would make him out to be.

He made a bloody stupid mistake that in the context of his work as a whole
is near insignificant ... you may ask about Sally Clarke, was it
insignificant to her? Perhaps not, niethr were the catalogue of injuries
that were noted her boys had recieved prior to their eventual deaths and in
any case it was the evidence that Dr Williams wrongfully withheld that was
the deciding factor, not Meadow's misuse of statistics.

So yes, I still say he got a bum deal.
--
Regards,

Periander
The Todal
2006-02-17 23:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Helen
Post by Periander
...
Post by Derek Hornby
"Children can only be protected from abuse if those who suspect abuse
are able to give their honest opinion without fear of retribution.
"Honest Opinion", the first word is I believe very significant.
Post by Derek Hornby
I still feel the GMC was correct.
Fair enough, I still think that they acted like a bunch of cunts and acted
to scapgoat Prf Meadow for no reason other than to score a few brownie
points with the tabloids.
Compare and contrast to what they did with in the case of the liar and
incompetant San Lazero.
Just because they were very,very wrong in the case of San Lazero, doesn't
mean they were wrong in the case of Meadows.
The judge, in the case of the Meadows' case, once again, like Meadows,
doesn't understand statistics.
Meadows did not state a statistic from a report. He took a statistic from
a report and then applied a wrong statistical technique to it It is a
statistical method that any first year undergraduate of any 'not maths,
but numbers and stats needed' degree needs to have.
I think you're nearly there.

He took a statistic from the report and quoted it. The lawyers on both
sides, having more intelligence than a first year undergraduate, could see
the flaws in the statistics. The defence expert gave evidence about the flaw
in the statistics. If the jury were misled, it was the fault of the lawyers.
t***@hotmail.com
2006-02-18 00:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
I think you're nearly there.
He took a statistic from the report and quoted it. The lawyers on both
sides, having more intelligence than a first year undergraduate, could see
the flaws in the statistics. The defence expert gave evidence about the flaw
in the statistics. If the jury were misled, it was the fault of the lawyers.
So should Sally Clarke and the other wrongly jailed women go back to
jail or should the Judge and the lawyers?
pete
The Todal
2006-02-18 00:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by The Todal
I think you're nearly there.
He took a statistic from the report and quoted it. The lawyers on both
sides, having more intelligence than a first year undergraduate, could see
the flaws in the statistics. The defence expert gave evidence about the flaw
in the statistics. If the jury were misled, it was the fault of the lawyers.
So should Sally Clarke and the other wrongly jailed women go back to
jail or should the Judge and the lawyers?
There should be trenchant public criticism of the judge and the lawyers -
there is probably no disciplinary procedure they could face, equivalent to
the GMC, but responsibility should be placed squarely where it belongs, yes.
t***@hotmail.com
2006-02-18 01:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by t***@hotmail.com
So should Sally Clarke and the other wrongly jailed women go back to
jail or should the Judge and the lawyers?
There should be trenchant public criticism of the judge and the lawyers -
there is probably no disciplinary procedure they could face, equivalent to
the GMC, but responsibility should be placed squarely where it belongs, yes.
But there won't be. I know you feel very strongly about Meadows but I
think you have allowed your feelings to lead you further than you
should have gone in some of your posts. However that is your opinion
and you are entitled to it. As I am to mine and I disagree with you in
regards to Meadows;-)
pete
The Todal
2006-02-18 15:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by The Todal
Post by t***@hotmail.com
So should Sally Clarke and the other wrongly jailed women go back to
jail or should the Judge and the lawyers?
There should be trenchant public criticism of the judge and the lawyers -
there is probably no disciplinary procedure they could face, equivalent to
the GMC, but responsibility should be placed squarely where it belongs, yes.
But there won't be. I know you feel very strongly about Meadows but I
think you have allowed your feelings to lead you further than you
should have gone in some of your posts. However that is your opinion
and you are entitled to it. As I am to mine and I disagree with you in
regards to Meadows;-)
I feel strongly that Meadow was the victim of a grievous miscarriage of
justice. It is not unusual to read here about miscarriages of justice. I
leave it to others to campaign for the release of people convicted of
murder, because I don't know the evidence in those cases. Uniquely, in the
Meadow case just about all the evidence was in the public domain and it was
blatantly obvious that the GMC had behaved disgracefully.

The GMC is not popular amongst doctors, and I can see why.

I don't think it is a new principle of law, at all, to say that a person who
gives evidence in court to the best of his ability should not face
disciplinary action as punishment for giving the "wrong" evidence. It is a
very old principle of law. Usually it leads to those who molest a witness in
this way, being sent to prison. The judge has merely reminded the GMC of
what the law has always been, and has pointed out that unless a judge
announces in court that a witness has deserved to be disciplined, the GMC
should leave witnesses alone. I hope they learn their lesson. So far, they
have failed to show any contrition.

It is remarkable, as a separate issue, that among doctors Professor Meadow
is highly respected as an authority in his field, and he was knighted for
his services to medicine, and yet the Press continue to demonise him from
force of habit. I don't suppose he has the funds or the energy to sue them
for libel, but our Press (mainly lazy hacks copying and pasting to fill up a
page and keep their editors happy, without much thought for the accuracy of
what they say) really ought to be ashamed of themselves. Instead of running
to Angela Cannings for yet another quote about how miserable she feels, they
should find themselves a lawyer.
t***@hotmail.com
2006-02-18 21:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
It is remarkable, as a separate issue, that among doctors Professor Meadow
is highly respected as an authority in his field, and he was knighted for
his services to medicine, and yet the Press continue to demonise him from
force of habit. I don't suppose he has the funds or the energy to sue them
for libel, but our Press (mainly lazy hacks copying and pasting to fill up a
page and keep their editors happy, without much thought for the accuracy of
what they say) really ought to be ashamed of themselves. Instead of running
to Angela Cannings for yet another quote about how miserable she feels, they
should find themselves a lawyer.
You obviously feel as strongly about a mans reputation as I do about
others freedom not to be locked up wrongly.
pete
The Todal
2006-02-18 22:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by The Todal
It is remarkable, as a separate issue, that among doctors Professor Meadow
is highly respected as an authority in his field, and he was knighted for
his services to medicine, and yet the Press continue to demonise him from
force of habit. I don't suppose he has the funds or the energy to sue them
for libel, but our Press (mainly lazy hacks copying and pasting to fill up a
page and keep their editors happy, without much thought for the accuracy of
what they say) really ought to be ashamed of themselves. Instead of running
to Angela Cannings for yet another quote about how miserable she feels, they
should find themselves a lawyer.
You obviously feel as strongly about a mans reputation as I do about
others freedom not to be locked up wrongly.
I think I feel as strongly as you do about the right to a fair trial and not
to be locked up wrongly.

The decision to make Meadow a scapegoat was more irrational and unreasonable
than the decision to prosecute Clark, Cannings and Anthony for having the
misfortune to lose a succession of babies. The belief that by having a
scapegoat you prevent miscarriages of justice from ever happening again, is
a widely held but very naive belief. The fact is, you will never prevent
miscarriages of justice.
elizabeth lucy
2006-02-18 22:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Meadow knew he was stating erroneous stats x 3 - this is now widely known.
Not over yet
Post by The Todal
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by The Todal
It is remarkable, as a separate issue, that among doctors Professor Meadow
is highly respected as an authority in his field, and he was knighted for
his services to medicine, and yet the Press continue to demonise him from
force of habit. I don't suppose he has the funds or the energy to sue them
for libel, but our Press (mainly lazy hacks copying and pasting to fill up a
page and keep their editors happy, without much thought for the accuracy of
what they say) really ought to be ashamed of themselves. Instead of running
to Angela Cannings for yet another quote about how miserable she feels, they
should find themselves a lawyer.
You obviously feel as strongly about a mans reputation as I do about
others freedom not to be locked up wrongly.
I think I feel as strongly as you do about the right to a fair trial and
not to be locked up wrongly.
The decision to make Meadow a scapegoat was more irrational and
unreasonable than the decision to prosecute Clark, Cannings and Anthony
for having the misfortune to lose a succession of babies. The belief that
by having a scapegoat you prevent miscarriages of justice from ever
happening again, is a widely held but very naive belief. The fact is, you
will never prevent miscarriages of justice.
Anthony R. Gold
2006-02-19 20:02:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:31:01 GMT, "elizabeth lucy"
Post by elizabeth lucy
Meadow knew he was stating erroneous stats x 3 - this is now widely known.
Not over yet
Please explain how you know for certain that he believed them to be untrue
while he was telling them to some court as his expert evidence.

Tony
PeteM
2006-02-20 08:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony R. Gold
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:31:01 GMT, "elizabeth lucy"
Post by elizabeth lucy
Meadow knew he was stating erroneous stats x 3 - this is now widely known.
Not over yet
Please explain how you know for certain that he believed them to be untrue
while he was telling them to some court as his expert evidence.
Let me do it. The principle of statistical independence[*] is a basic
idea in statistics. Meadow was a distinguished scientist with particular
expertise in the epidemiology of paediatric mortality. All such persons
have considerable training and experience in the use of probability and
statistics. Therefore Meadow knew all about the principle of statistical
independence. He would have known that any statement contradicting it is
false. But in the Clark case he made a statement at clear and obvious
variance with this principle. Therefore Meadow gave evidence that he
knew at the time was false.


[*] i.e. the theorem "P(A&B) != P(A)*P(B) unless events A and B are
statistically independent"
--
PeteM
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Ben
2006-02-20 09:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeteM
Let me do it. The principle of statistical independence[*] is a basic
idea in statistics. Meadow was a distinguished scientist with particular
expertise in the epidemiology of paediatric mortality. All such persons
have considerable training and experience in the use of probability and
statistics. Therefore Meadow knew all about the principle of statistical
independence. He would have known that any statement contradicting it is
false. But in the Clark case he made a statement at clear and obvious
variance with this principle. Therefore Meadow gave evidence that he
knew at the time was false.
[*] i.e. the theorem "P(A&B) != P(A)*P(B) unless events A and B are
statistically independent"
Very well done, clear and concise.

Meadows was arrogant and clearly past it, he should have been rebutted
in spades at the trial and I think someone pointed out that the defense
barrister tried to do so but failed, the pre eminence of Meadows no
doubt was a contributing factor of the conviction, (s) but, Meadows
took a big hit for his arrogance.
Ben
2006-02-18 23:46:09 UTC
Permalink
The Todal wrote:

Firstly, Turtill is a despicable liar and does not care two figs about
a person who gets locked up wrongly, secondly I believe only one of you
believes in the right of fair trial in its truest sense, Turtill has no
idea of fair play.

What Meadows did wrong was to be *expert* on a subject in which he is
rightly considered to be an expert and he gave an incorrect
interpretation, in other words the *expert* cocked up, his expertize
was and is no doubt seen as arrogance and a mark against him by lessor
beings as well as his contemporaries.

It was his arrogance more than anything else that brought him undone,
and his profession, aware of that arrogance who were unforgiving, but,
the law as it should forgave him his mistake, given his age he is
unlikely to do any further work or become *expert* again. In persuing
the right to clear his name to these ends, he shows a sense of pride in
his achievements, which in hindsight will no doubt be seen by others
and himself as a stupidty and a total waste of money There but for the
grace of god go I
t***@hotmail.com
2006-02-19 00:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by The Todal
It is remarkable, as a separate issue, that among doctors Professor Meadow
is highly respected as an authority in his field, and he was knighted for
his services to medicine, and yet the Press continue to demonise him from
force of habit. I don't suppose he has the funds or the energy to sue them
for libel, but our Press (mainly lazy hacks copying and pasting to fill up a
page and keep their editors happy, without much thought for the accuracy of
what they say) really ought to be ashamed of themselves. Instead of running
to Angela Cannings for yet another quote about how miserable she feels, they
should find themselves a lawyer.
You obviously feel as strongly about a mans reputation as I do about
others freedom not to be locked up wrongly.
I think I feel as strongly as you do about the right to a fair trial and not
to be locked up wrongly.
The decision to make Meadow a scapegoat was more irrational and unreasonable
than the decision to prosecute Clark, Cannings and Anthony for having the
misfortune to lose a succession of babies. The belief that by having a
scapegoat you prevent miscarriages of justice from ever happening again, is
a widely held but very naive belief. The fact is, you will never prevent
miscarriages of justice.
That is of course true because there is no real consequence of making
irresponsible prosecutions or irresponsible statements against people
facing serious consequences.
pete
MM
2006-02-19 18:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
The decision to make Meadow a scapegoat was more irrational and unreasonable
than the decision to prosecute Clark, Cannings and Anthony for having the
misfortune to lose a succession of babies. The belief that by having a
scapegoat you prevent miscarriages of justice from ever happening again, is
a widely held but very naive belief. The fact is, you will never prevent
miscarriages of justice.
Surely you can prevent more miscarriages of justice by removing expert
witnesses who have allegedly stated something that is subsequently
found to be inaccurate? Why should anyone have any trust in them
further?

MM
The Todal
2006-02-19 19:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
The decision to make Meadow a scapegoat was more irrational and unreasonable
than the decision to prosecute Clark, Cannings and Anthony for having the
misfortune to lose a succession of babies. The belief that by having a
scapegoat you prevent miscarriages of justice from ever happening again, is
a widely held but very naive belief. The fact is, you will never prevent
miscarriages of justice.
Surely you can prevent more miscarriages of justice by removing expert
witnesses who have allegedly stated something that is subsequently
found to be inaccurate? Why should anyone have any trust in them
further?
If you removed experts who had ever given evidence that was found to be
inaccurate, you wouldn't have any experts left - or maybe you'd have a small
number of inexperienced baby experts who had not yet had time to make a
mistake.

Every expert who regularly gives evidence in court, will at some time say
something that is "subsequently found to be inaccurate". Judges spend much
of their time weighing the evidence of different experts, preferring the
evidence of one expert to another, deciding which evidence is reliable and
which is inadequately researched or outside the proper field of expertise of
the expert. On rare occasions they make scathing remarks about how a
particular expert was blinkered or refused to accept how illogical his views
were. It is a fairly commonplace scenario.

Only a blithering idiot would imagine that if you put an expert witness in
the witness box, everything he says must be true, and if he should
inadvertently say something like "the sun orbits the earth", it will
thenceforth become true. If you want to explain something technical
involving chemistry, you ask a chemist to give evidence and you question him
closely. If he happens to quote a statistic, you don't assume that because
he is there as an expert, he must therefore be an expert in statistics.

When experts gives their evidence, it is customary for the barristers to
question them closely on the source of their information, whether it is up
to date, whether they have fully applied their knowledge to the facts of the
case in hand. And they will usually ask an expert to produce any textbooks
or articles from which he obtained his information, and they might point out
that a different expert has interpreted the information differently and ask
what his reaction is.

In the case of Meadow, it was known that he was retiring from practice and
from giving expert evidence. At most (and only if he had been guilty of
malpractice, which he wasn't) there might have been a need to prohibit him
from taking on any medico-legal cases in the future. What the GMC chose to
do instead was to proclaim that a distinguished, hard working professional
man who had accomplished a huge amount in his life, was so wicked that he
should be struck off and live the rest of his life in disgrace, as if he was
a murderer or a fraud. And that was a disgusting thing for the GMC to do.
MM
2006-02-20 11:19:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
The decision to make Meadow a scapegoat was more irrational and unreasonable
than the decision to prosecute Clark, Cannings and Anthony for having the
misfortune to lose a succession of babies. The belief that by having a
scapegoat you prevent miscarriages of justice from ever happening again, is
a widely held but very naive belief. The fact is, you will never prevent
miscarriages of justice.
Surely you can prevent more miscarriages of justice by removing expert
witnesses who have allegedly stated something that is subsequently
found to be inaccurate? Why should anyone have any trust in them
further?
If you removed experts who had ever given evidence that was found to be
inaccurate, you wouldn't have any experts left
But who is claiming that expert witnesses are being removed at all
frequently? This was a one-off - along with only a very few other
cases that I can recall from the media. Yet every day there must be
hundreds of expert witnesses giving evidence in courts up and down the
country.

Therefore, the likelihood is that the majority are indeed giving
accurate information. This bolsters my argument that it would be best
to leave the barrel as unpolluted as possible by removing any apple
even suspected of being a little bit rotten.

After all, not all the apples become rotten at once, do they?

MM
The Todal
2006-02-20 11:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
The decision to make Meadow a scapegoat was more irrational and unreasonable
than the decision to prosecute Clark, Cannings and Anthony for having the
misfortune to lose a succession of babies. The belief that by having a
scapegoat you prevent miscarriages of justice from ever happening again, is
a widely held but very naive belief. The fact is, you will never prevent
miscarriages of justice.
Surely you can prevent more miscarriages of justice by removing expert
witnesses who have allegedly stated something that is subsequently
found to be inaccurate? Why should anyone have any trust in them
further?
If you removed experts who had ever given evidence that was found to be
inaccurate, you wouldn't have any experts left
But who is claiming that expert witnesses are being removed at all
frequently? This was a one-off - along with only a very few other
cases that I can recall from the media. Yet every day there must be
hundreds of expert witnesses giving evidence in courts up and down the
country.
And what the public doesn't know, is that if an expert gives a poor
performance in the witness box this quickly becomes known by most of the
barristers and solicitors who specialise in this sort of work, and they
often decide not to instruct him again.
Post by MM
Therefore, the likelihood is that the majority are indeed giving
accurate information.
The vast majority (including of course Professor Meadow when he gave
evidence) give evidence that is accurate to the best of their knowledge and
belief. Sometimes the evidence of an opponent will be preferred. It does not
follow that the expert whose evidence has been rejected, has given bad
evidence.
Post by MM
This bolsters my argument that it would be best
to leave the barrel as unpolluted as possible by removing any apple
even suspected of being a little bit rotten.
After all, not all the apples become rotten at once, do they?
Your analogy is a bad one. The "bad apple" analogy is intended to convey an
impression of a bad apple infecting all the others in the barrel. It applies
quite well to a police force. Unless you remove a corrupt officer,
eventually the whole team will be taking bribes. But (and I know some here
would disagree) expert witnesses do not infect each other. It is true that
a group of experts might favour a rather implausible scientific hypothesis,
but then it is up to the court to decide. Such a hypothesis might, for
instance, relate to the likelihood of a dying girl exhaling a significant
quantity of air from her lungs. If that theory is one day totally disproved,
would anyone seriously suggest that the relevant experts be disciplined and
perhaps struck off? Against that, Meadow's error is vanishingly trivial. A
statistic which he believed at the time was valid and which he assumed had
minimal relevance because nobody was saying that the children were cot
deaths.
Helen
2006-02-19 19:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by The Todal
It is remarkable, as a separate issue, that among doctors Professor Meadow
is highly respected as an authority in his field, and he was knighted for
his services to medicine, and yet the Press continue to demonise him from
force of habit. I don't suppose he has the funds or the energy to sue them
for libel, but our Press (mainly lazy hacks copying and pasting to fill up a
page and keep their editors happy, without much thought for the accuracy of
what they say) really ought to be ashamed of themselves. Instead of running
to Angela Cannings for yet another quote about how miserable she feels, they
should find themselves a lawyer.
You obviously feel as strongly about a mans reputation as I do about
others freedom not to be locked up wrongly.
I think I feel as strongly as you do about the right to a fair trial and
not to be locked up wrongly.
The decision to make Meadow a scapegoat was more irrational and
unreasonable than the decision to prosecute Clark, Cannings and Anthony
for having the misfortune to lose a succession of babies.
They and their husbands had the misfortune to lose more than one baby in
this age where everything has to have a known medical cause; if it doesn't,
the parent is deemed responsible.

In my grandparents' time, it was simply accepted that children did die -
all my grandparents were of large families (8+) where at least one child in
each family died before the age of 1.

Medical science does not know everything and it certainly does still not
know why children and adults die of 'sudden infant death' or 'sudden adult
dealth'.

I know of someone whose wife died of what can be called 'sudden adult
dealth' in bed with her husband - her heart simply stopped beating for no
obvious reason (although there are lots of medical reasons why this can
happen, and many don't show up in a postmortem).

The husband did not face the same treatment that parents with dead babies
face.
The Todal
2006-02-19 19:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Helen
Post by The Todal
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by The Todal
It is remarkable, as a separate issue, that among doctors Professor Meadow
is highly respected as an authority in his field, and he was knighted for
his services to medicine, and yet the Press continue to demonise him from
force of habit. I don't suppose he has the funds or the energy to sue them
for libel, but our Press (mainly lazy hacks copying and pasting to fill up a
page and keep their editors happy, without much thought for the accuracy of
what they say) really ought to be ashamed of themselves. Instead of running
to Angela Cannings for yet another quote about how miserable she feels, they
should find themselves a lawyer.
You obviously feel as strongly about a mans reputation as I do about
others freedom not to be locked up wrongly.
I think I feel as strongly as you do about the right to a fair trial and
not to be locked up wrongly.
The decision to make Meadow a scapegoat was more irrational and
unreasonable than the decision to prosecute Clark, Cannings and Anthony
for having the misfortune to lose a succession of babies.
They and their husbands had the misfortune to lose more than one baby in
this age where everything has to have a known medical cause; if it
doesn't, the parent is deemed responsible.
In my grandparents' time, it was simply accepted that children did die -
all my grandparents were of large families (8+) where at least one child
in each family died before the age of 1.
Very true, and I think that was probably the gist of the evidence given in
the Trupti Patel case, which resulted in a finding of not guilty.
Post by Helen
Medical science does not know everything and it certainly does still not
know why children and adults die of 'sudden infant death' or 'sudden adult
dealth'.
I know of someone whose wife died of what can be called 'sudden adult
dealth' in bed with her husband - her heart simply stopped beating for no
obvious reason (although there are lots of medical reasons why this can
happen, and many don't show up in a postmortem).
The husband did not face the same treatment that parents with dead babies
face.
I wonder if it might have been different if a few years later his new wife
was also found dead in bed next to him. In the Sally Clark case, the
circumstances of the two deaths were surprisingly similar.

But no, if it was up to me, I'd give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I
don't hold with this obsession the police have with putting people on trial
and getting them convicted and putting them in prison. After all, a person
who kills her babies is rather unlikely to kill anyone else. Same with
someone who kills an irritating spouse. We should spend more time on those
who are dangerous to the community at large, such as drunken drivers.
Dave the exTrailer
2006-02-19 11:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by The Todal
It is remarkable, as a separate issue, that among doctors Professor Meadow
is highly respected as an authority in his field, and he was knighted for
his services to medicine, and yet the Press continue to demonise him from
force of habit. I don't suppose he has the funds or the energy to sue them
for libel, but our Press (mainly lazy hacks copying and pasting to fill up a
page and keep their editors happy, without much thought for the accuracy of
what they say) really ought to be ashamed of themselves. Instead of running
to Angela Cannings for yet another quote about how miserable she feels, they
should find themselves a lawyer.
You obviously feel as strongly about a mans reputation as I do about
others freedom not to be locked up wrongly.
pete
What about others freedom not to have lies, falsehoods and abuses
posted about them without any evidence at all?
c***@hotmail.com
2006-02-19 14:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Quiet astonishing affair. Here is a supposed expert who got it
seriously wrong and has traumatised several families. And the excuse
for not disbarring him - "He acted in good faith".
Expert - Ex - a has been, (s)pert - drip under pressure - sums it up
exactly.
Helen
2006-02-18 00:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Helen
Post by Periander
...
Post by Derek Hornby
"Children can only be protected from abuse if those who suspect abuse
are able to give their honest opinion without fear of retribution.
"Honest Opinion", the first word is I believe very significant.
Post by Derek Hornby
I still feel the GMC was correct.
Fair enough, I still think that they acted like a bunch of cunts and acted
to scapgoat Prf Meadow for no reason other than to score a few brownie
points with the tabloids.
Compare and contrast to what they did with in the case of the liar and
incompetant San Lazero.
Just because they were very,very wrong in the case of San Lazero, doesn't
mean they were wrong in the case of Meadows.
The judge, in the case of the Meadows' case, once again, like Meadows,
doesn't understand statistics.
Meadows did not state a statistic from a report. He took a statistic
from a report and then applied a wrong statistical technique to it It is
a statistical method that any first year undergraduate of any 'not maths,
but numbers and stats needed' degree needs to have.
I think you're nearly there.
He took a statistic from the report and quoted it.
He did not do that. Please read the relevent material.
The Todal
2006-02-18 14:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Helen
Post by The Todal
I think you're nearly there.
He took a statistic from the report and quoted it.
He did not do that. Please read the relevent material.
Okay, since you can't be bothered to quote material to support your view,
here is the material. He took a statistic from the report and quoted it (he
did not make up the statistic himself) without explaining that the statistic
was unreliable because of the methodology used. The methodology was obvious
from the context and the lawyers were amply qualified, with the assistance
of their own expert, to explain the flaws to the jury.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2000/54.html

quote

The likelihood of SIDS varies with social circumstances. The most recent
estimation of the incidence in England is that for a family in which the
parents do not smoke, in which at least one has a waged income and in which
the mother is over the age of 26 years, the risk is 1:8,543 live births.
[the three prenatal factors referred to in paragraph 112 above]
Thus the chances of two infant deaths within such a family being SIDS is
1:73,000,000."
That calculation comes from the CESDI Study.

We have seen that the genesis of the 1:73 million figure was the CESDI
Study, and not any individual calculation made by Professor Meadow. The
grace note was that this would occur "... once in a hundred years". This
evidence was given by Professor Meadow in examination in chief on the sixth
day of the Crown evidence. While the "100 years" answer was new to the case,
it was a straight mathematical calculation to anyone who knew that the
birthrate over England, Scotland and Wales was approximately 700,000 a year.
Mr Bevan submits that this answer must have greatly affected the jury. He
suggested that its impact would have been "overwhelming". But he did not
suggest the effect was such that the judge should have discharged the jury,
and he did not so apply. Nor did the defence invite the judge to direct the
jury to ignore the evidence relating to Table 3.58 of the Study, nor to give
any special direction in relation to it.

In our judgment, however, Professor Meadow's opinion was based on his expert
assessment of the medical and circumstantial evidence, not on the
statistical material. Most of his examination in chief was concerned with
the medical issues. He nowhere suggests that Table 3.58 (which did not deal
with deaths such as these) provides any evidence that these deaths were
unnatural, only that true SIDS were rare. No-one would know better than
Professor Meadow that the important evidence as to whether these deaths were
unnatural lay in the physical finding port-mortem, in the account of the
last hours of the infants, and in the evidence and credibility of the
parents - it certainly did not lie in the statistics. And it is clear from
reading his evidence that his conclusion was firmly based on that medical
and circumstantial evidence, as one would expect.
unquote
PeteM
2006-02-18 17:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
He took a statistic from the report and quoted it.
He knew, or should have known, that the statistic he quoted was
incorrect, but he quoted it anyway and thereby leant it his authority as
an expert witness.
Post by The Todal
The lawyers on both
sides, having more intelligence than a first year undergraduate, could
see the flaws in the statistics.
No, I don't agree. You need more than intelligence to be able to spot
that particular fallacy; you also need some training in probability and
statistics.
Post by The Todal
The defence expert gave evidence about
the flaw in the statistics.
If a witness who gives false testimony is contradicted by another
witness, that does not excuse the first witness's lies.
Post by The Todal
If the jury were misled, it was the fault of
the lawyers.
The CPS lawyers do bear some of the blame, but I do not see how the
defence could have done much about it. They should perhaps have tried to
get the statistical evidence ruled inadmissible. But, as I have said
before, their mistake does not excuse Meadow's behaviour.
--
PeteM
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Dave (from the UK)
2006-02-18 22:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeteM
Post by The Todal
The lawyers on both
sides, having more intelligence than a first year undergraduate, could
see the flaws in the statistics.
No, I don't agree. You need more than intelligence to be able to spot
that particular fallacy; you also need some training in probability and
statistics.
Sure you need some training, but not an awful lot. The squaring of the
two probabilities assumes the events are independent, but nothing to
indicate they should be considered independent. That is not that hard.

But I know statistics knowledge of the population is quite poor. Some
work mates of someone in my local pub are in a cindicate for the
lottery. Apparently they always pick numbers that sum to about 160-190.
I gather the logic is that they have carefully entered the winning
numbers each week into an Excel spread sheet and find that the sum of
the 7 numbers is most often around the 160-190 mark. Totally flawed, but
he will not have it and apparently they are all convinced of their
method. No doubt if by chance they win one week, they will think they
have "proved" me wrong.
Post by PeteM
The CPS lawyers do bear some of the blame, but I do not see how the
defence could have done much about it. They should perhaps have tried to
get the statistical evidence ruled inadmissible.
If that statistic (1 in 73 million) was considered important to the
case, surely it would be worth getting it checked.
Post by PeteM
But, as I have said
before, their mistake does not excuse Meadow's behaviour.
From my experience with medics, his lack of statistical knowledge is
*far* from unique.

Let me state a few things, for those that have not worked in research.

1) You get to be a Professor based on your research. You could be the
best surgeon in the country at performing operations, but if you don't
publish research material, you are most unlikely ever to get a chair.

2) Medical literature, more than most other fields, is littered with
probabilities and statistics.

3) You are more likely to get work published, or get an MD, if data fits
an interesting model. Hence there is a desire to get the statistics
supporting an interesting theory, rather than supporting something
boring and uninteresting.

IMHO, the usual approach of many medics seems to be to try different
statistical tests until one fits the model they want it to. If you don't
believe me, find a few articles from medical journals and show me where
the reason for using a particular test is justified.
--
Dave K

Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert (MCSE).

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-***@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.
PeteM
2006-02-19 14:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Dave (from the UK) <see-my-***@southminster-branch-line.org.uk>
posted
Post by Dave (from the UK)
Post by PeteM
Post by The Todal
The lawyers on both
sides, having more intelligence than a first year undergraduate, could
see the flaws in the statistics.
No, I don't agree. You need more than intelligence to be able to spot
that particular fallacy; you also need some training in probability and
statistics.
Sure you need some training, but not an awful lot. The squaring of the
two probabilities assumes the events are independent, but nothing to
indicate they should be considered independent. That is not that hard.
It isn't hard once you have learned to think in terms of numerical
probabilities, the rules of combining them, and how they relate to logic
and set theory. Every scientist has done this training (when I was at
school, it was taught at age 14); but almost no lawyers.
Post by Dave (from the UK)
But I know statistics knowledge of the population is quite poor. Some
work mates of someone in my local pub are in a cindicate for the
lottery. Apparently they always pick numbers that sum to about 160-190.
I gather the logic is that they have carefully entered the winning
numbers each week into an Excel spread sheet and find that the sum of
the 7 numbers is most often around the 160-190 mark. Totally flawed, but
he will not have it and apparently they are all convinced of their
method. No doubt if by chance they win one week, they will think they
have "proved" me wrong.
Quite. ISTM a variant of the Gambler's Fallacy, i.e if a number comes up
X times in a row then it is less likely to come up the next time. A very
widely believed fallacy.
Post by Dave (from the UK)
Post by PeteM
The CPS lawyers do bear some of the blame, but I do not see how the
defence could have done much about it. They should perhaps have tried to
get the statistical evidence ruled inadmissible.
If that statistic (1 in 73 million) was considered important to the
case, surely it would be worth getting it checked.
Post by PeteM
But, as I have said
before, their mistake does not excuse Meadow's behaviour.
From my experience with medics, his lack of statistical knowledge is
*far* from unique.
I agree. I've read hundreds of clinical research studies. It is
extremely common - almost the norm - to find a methodological error,
very often in the choice of statistical method.
--
PeteM
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Dave (from the UK)
2006-02-19 18:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeteM
Post by Dave (from the UK)
From my experience with medics, his lack of statistical knowledge is
*far* from unique.
I agree. I've read hundreds of clinical research studies. It is
extremely common - almost the norm - to find a methodological error,
very often in the choice of statistical method.
It might well cause some lawyers to look over some old cases where
convictions were based on statistical data provided by medical experts.

It is quite likly the orignal published material used a methodological
error to arrive at a statisitc. If that statisitic formed a major part
of a conviction, and the method was found to be incorrect, there might
be a basis for an appeal.
--
Dave K

Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert (MCSE).

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-***@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.
Fergus O'Rourke
2006-02-23 07:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Helen
Post by Periander
...
Post by Derek Hornby
"Children can only be protected from abuse if those who suspect
abuse are able to give their honest opinion without fear of
retribution.
"Honest Opinion", the first word is I believe very significant.
Post by Derek Hornby
I still feel the GMC was correct.
Fair enough, I still think that they acted like a bunch of cunts and acted
to scapgoat Prf Meadow for no reason other than to score a few
brownie points with the tabloids.
Compare and contrast to what they did with in the case of the
liar and incompetant San Lazero.
Just because they were very,very wrong in the case of San Lazero,
doesn't mean they were wrong in the case of Meadows.
The judge, in the case of the Meadows' case, once again, like
Meadows, doesn't understand statistics.
Meadows did not state a statistic from a report. He took a
statistic from a report and then applied a wrong statistical
technique to it It is a statistical method that any first year
undergraduate of any 'not maths, but numbers and stats needed'
degree needs to have.
I think you're nearly there.
He took a statistic from the report and quoted it.
He did a little bit more than that, but I agree that it matters not.
Post by The Todal
The lawyers on
both sides, having more intelligence than a first year
undergraduate, could see the flaws in the statistics. The defence
expert gave evidence about the flaw in the statistics. If the jury
were misled, it was the fault of the lawyers.
And I, also a practising lawyer (The Todal is one), agree.

Please archive this post and refer to it every time you feel your
anti-lawyer spleen rising.

Cynic
2006-02-19 16:53:20 UTC
Permalink
On 17 Feb 2006 22:27:28 GMT, Periander
Post by Periander
Compare and contrast to what they did with in the case of the liar and
incompetant San Lazero.
She is indeed a liar. I am not convinced that what she did was done
due to incompetance rather than maliciousness.
--
Cuynic
Periander
2006-02-19 22:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
On 17 Feb 2006 22:27:28 GMT, Periander
Post by Periander
Compare and contrast to what they did with in the case of the liar and
incompetant San Lazero.
She is indeed a liar. I am not convinced that what she did was done
due to incompetance rather than maliciousness.
She was incompetant in the manner in which she conducted her examinations
and dishonest (lied) in the way in which she reported her findings. Malice
of course I'd argue came in later ...
--
Regards,

Periander
Cynic
2006-02-20 13:07:54 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Feb 2006 22:53:57 GMT, Periander
Post by Periander
Post by Cynic
Post by Periander
Compare and contrast to what they did with in the case of the liar and
incompetant San Lazero.
She is indeed a liar. I am not convinced that what she did was done
due to incompetance rather than maliciousness.
She was incompetant in the manner in which she conducted her examinations
and dishonest (lied) in the way in which she reported her findings. Malice
of course I'd argue came in later ...
ISTM that she had decided right from the start (before looking at any
evidence) that Lillie and Reed were nasty paedophiles who had abused
the toddlers in their care. She decided to write a report that was as
damning as possible in order to cause maximum damage to Lillie & Reed.

The fact that she did not look at the evidence was thus not a case of
incompetance - it was simply something that she decided was totally
unnecessary in order to fulfil her agenda.

Not that she was the only person with such an agenda. It was
essentially a form of mob hysteria amongst several so-called experts,
and they should *all* be called to account properly for the damage
they caused. Bearing in mind that the major damage was caused after a
criminal court case in which the judge provided an objective 3rd-party
summary of the lack of evidence against Lillie and Reed that should at
the very least have signalled caution and a re-examination of the
facts. Instead it was totally ignored, as was any evidence that did
not support the desired conclusions.
--
Cynic
The Todal
2006-02-20 13:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Periander
Post by Cynic
On 17 Feb 2006 22:27:28 GMT, Periander
Post by Periander
Compare and contrast to what they did with in the case of the liar and
incompetant San Lazero.
She is indeed a liar. I am not convinced that what she did was done
due to incompetance rather than maliciousness.
She was incompetant in the manner in which she conducted her examinations
and dishonest (lied) in the way in which she reported her findings. Malice
of course I'd argue came in later ...
I think it might be best to quote chapter and verse.
http://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/decisions/search_database/ftp_panel_de_sam_lazaro_20050513.asp
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/1600.html

[quote]
A loud warning about the holistic approach is to be found in this case in
the evidence of Dr San Lazaro herself. On 16 May she was attempting to
explain why she had deliberately overstated and exaggerated her findings
when reporting to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board:
"The problem about sexual abuse and the issue of compensation is that
physical findings alone - the absence or presence of physical findings are
of no consequence. The largest consequence for sexually abused children is
the emotional and traumatic effect upon them, upon their families, upon
their future and on their children. So in essence the damages have very
little to do with a tear in the hymen or a tag of the anus. It is to do with
the emotional aftermath and the long term effects. I think that I am
qualified to talk about those things and I still do them".
The truth is that, where physical findings were negative or equivocal, Dr
San Lazaro was prepared to make up the deficiencies by throwing objectivity
and scientific rigour to the winds in a highly emotional misrepresentation
of the facts (as, for example, in her so-called "generic report" for the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or in her cranky letter about Child 1:
see below). The problem is that her emotive misrepresentations carried with
some readers the authority of a senior medical practitioner.
Mercifully, I can assume that Dr San Lazaro is very much the exception among
senior paediatricians. But it is necessary to recognise the dangers of the
holistic approach which make it so important to have colposcopy and the
ready availability of peer review. Dr San Lazaro told me that she slipped
into the role of advocate because she was so affected herself by the
children's trauma (real or perceived). Although she rejected Miss Page's
suggestion that she had a "morbid" obsession, she did accept in
re-examination that she had a real "dread" of child abuse. I am sure she is
not alone in this. I must remember the stress and the pressures to which
paediatricians are sometimes subject in these circumstances when dealing
with parents. The more routine use of colposcopy and peer support may help
to reduce the risk of professionals going off the rails, as she undoubtedly
did. But I do believe that the nature of the problem needs to be spelt out.
[unquote]
The Todal
2006-02-17 23:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Hornby
Post by The Todal
Rubbish. Whoever wrote that, has no understanding of the law and has done a
cut and paste job without doing enough research.
"Children can only be protected from abuse if those who suspect abuse are
able to give their honest opinion without fear of retribution.
This is an important decision for paediatricians and all doctors, nurses,
teachers and other professionals who may have to express difficult and
sometimes unpopular opinions in the course of giving evidence in court.
They should be able to do so without the fear of prosecution by the GMC
or other professional regulators."
So care to explain what he means!
Seems self-evident. Now take the trouble to analyse what Mr Justice Collins
said. Incidentally, it looks as if the lawyers again fucked up (do they ever
get it right?) From the judgment: " Before going to the circumstances in
more detail, I should deal at the outset with a point that I raised but
which was not taken either before the FPP or in the grounds of appeal.
However, since it goes to the jurisdiction of the FPP to deal with a
complaint such as that made against the appellant, it seemed to me that it
was a point which ought to be considered, particularly as it might be
determinative of this appeal. The point is based on the immunity from suit
of a witness in respect of evidence he gives in a court of law. That
immunity applies as much to an expert as to any other witness: see X
(Minors) v Bedfordshire CC [1995] 2 A.C.633 approving Evans v London
Hospital Medical College [1981] 1 W.L.R. 184. The immunity extends to any
civil proceedings brought against a defendant which are based on the
evidence which he gives to a court. It extends to any statement which the
witness makes for the purpose of giving evidence."

In other words, Meadow's lawyers had failed to notice that they had a good
argument based on witness immunity and it was necessary for the judge
himself to point it out. Which is odd, because I had myself noticed it
months ago (though I do say so myself).
Post by Derek Hornby
Yes he has the rifht to exprtess a *honest* opinion in court, but
what if such opinions are either misleading, or totally wrong.
That means it's not a honest opinion then!
Your logic board requires replacement. Please refer to qualified personnel.
Anthony Edwards
2006-02-17 23:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
In other words, Meadow's lawyers had failed to notice that they had a good
argument based on witness immunity and it was necessary for the judge
himself to point it out. Which is odd, because I had myself noticed it
months ago (though I do say so myself).
And to myself, a mere layman, it was self evidently obvious.
--
Anthony Edwards
***@catfish.nildram.co.uk
u***@writeme.com
2006-02-17 22:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Hornby
Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins his appeal against the GMC's decision to strike
him off the medical register.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/4720334.stm
Expert witnesses in a court case will no longer be held to account for
their opinions, following a ruling today that has seen Professor Sir Roy
Meadow restored to the medical register.
The consultant paediatrician had been an expert witness in a number of
high profile cases including that of Donna Anthony, Angela Canning and
Trupti Patel, but it was his evidence in the case of Sally Clark that
led him to be found guilty by the GMC of gross professional misconduct,
and struck off.
Today Mr Justice Collins reversed that decision, and in doing so set a
new legal precedent. will change, fundamentally, court cases which use expert
witnesses?
Regardless of the fact that the 73 million to one statistic was
completely wrong, why is anyone so impressed by it?

The odds of someone winning the lottery are 54 million to 1, yet it
seems to happen every week.

Why didn't the defense challenge this statistic at the time, or at
least put it into context?
Paul Robson
2006-02-17 22:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@writeme.com
The odds of someone winning the lottery are 54 million to 1, yet it
seems to happen every week.
Why didn't the defense challenge this statistic at the time, or at
least put it into context?
Cos they don't understand basic sums either ?
The Todal
2006-02-17 23:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@writeme.com
Post by Derek Hornby
Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins his appeal against the GMC's decision to strike
him off the medical register.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/4720334.stm
Expert witnesses in a court case will no longer be held to account for
their opinions, following a ruling today that has seen Professor Sir Roy
Meadow restored to the medical register.
The consultant paediatrician had been an expert witness in a number of
high profile cases including that of Donna Anthony, Angela Canning and
Trupti Patel, but it was his evidence in the case of Sally Clark that
led him to be found guilty by the GMC of gross professional misconduct,
and struck off.
Today Mr Justice Collins reversed that decision, and in doing so set a
new legal precedent. will change, fundamentally, court cases which use expert
witnesses?
Regardless of the fact that the 73 million to one statistic was
completely wrong, why is anyone so impressed by it?
The odds of someone winning the lottery are 54 million to 1, yet it
seems to happen every week.
Why didn't the defense challenge this statistic at the time, or at
least put it into context?
That is part of the reason why the GMC's judgment on Meadow was so fucked
up.

Meadow says "here's a published research paper, here's a statistic". The
lawyers on both sides know exactly why the statistic might be misleading,
they both have ample time to object to the statistic, the defence expert
actually explains to the court why the statistic is misleading. So it isn't
a case of Meadow misleading the court. It is a question of the Court of
Appeal saying, long after the trial is over, "hang on, maybe that statistic
shouldn't have been quoted to the jury because they would have
misunderstood". And then the journalists and the vengeful harridans look for
a scapegoat. They can't touch the judge or the barristers. So they pick the
elderly and distinguished Professor Meadow and scapegoat him.
Helen
2006-02-18 01:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by u***@writeme.com
Post by Derek Hornby
Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins his appeal against the GMC's decision to strike
him off the medical register.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/4720334.stm
Expert witnesses in a court case will no longer be held to account for
their opinions, following a ruling today that has seen Professor Sir Roy
Meadow restored to the medical register.
The consultant paediatrician had been an expert witness in a number of
high profile cases including that of Donna Anthony, Angela Canning and
Trupti Patel, but it was his evidence in the case of Sally Clark that
led him to be found guilty by the GMC of gross professional misconduct,
and struck off.
Today Mr Justice Collins reversed that decision, and in doing so set a
new legal precedent. will change, fundamentally, court cases which use expert
witnesses?
Regardless of the fact that the 73 million to one statistic was
completely wrong, why is anyone so impressed by it?
The odds of someone winning the lottery are 54 million to 1, yet it
seems to happen every week.
Why didn't the defense challenge this statistic at the time, or at
least put it into context?
That is part of the reason why the GMC's judgment on Meadow was so fucked
up.
Meadow says "here's a published research paper, here's a statistic".
The Royal Society of Statistics were saying that Roy Meadows was wrong, well
before the first appeal.
Him over there
2006-02-18 09:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Helen
Post by The Todal
Post by u***@writeme.com
Post by Derek Hornby
Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins his appeal against the GMC's decision to strike
him off the medical register.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/4720334.stm
Expert witnesses in a court case will no longer be held to account for
their opinions, following a ruling today that has seen Professor Sir Roy
Meadow restored to the medical register.
The consultant paediatrician had been an expert witness in a number of
high profile cases including that of Donna Anthony, Angela Canning and
Trupti Patel, but it was his evidence in the case of Sally Clark that
led him to be found guilty by the GMC of gross professional
misconduct,
and struck off.
Today Mr Justice Collins reversed that decision, and in doing so set a
new legal precedent. will change, fundamentally, court cases which use expert
witnesses?
Regardless of the fact that the 73 million to one statistic was
completely wrong, why is anyone so impressed by it?
The odds of someone winning the lottery are 54 million to 1, yet it
seems to happen every week.
Why didn't the defense challenge this statistic at the time, or at
least put it into context?
That is part of the reason why the GMC's judgment on Meadow was so
fucked up.
Meadow says "here's a published research paper, here's a statistic".
The Royal Society of Statistics were saying that Roy Meadows was
wrong, well before the first appeal.
Quite so.


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
The Todal
2006-02-18 15:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Him over there
Post by Helen
Post by The Todal
Post by u***@writeme.com
Post by Derek Hornby
Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins his appeal against the GMC's decision to strike
him off the medical register.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/4720334.stm
Expert witnesses in a court case will no longer be held to account for
their opinions, following a ruling today that has seen Professor Sir Roy
Meadow restored to the medical register.
The consultant paediatrician had been an expert witness in a number of
high profile cases including that of Donna Anthony, Angela Canning and
Trupti Patel, but it was his evidence in the case of Sally Clark that
led him to be found guilty by the GMC of gross professional misconduct,
and struck off.
Today Mr Justice Collins reversed that decision, and in doing so set a
new legal precedent. will change, fundamentally, court cases which use expert
witnesses?
Regardless of the fact that the 73 million to one statistic was
completely wrong, why is anyone so impressed by it?
The odds of someone winning the lottery are 54 million to 1, yet it
seems to happen every week.
Why didn't the defense challenge this statistic at the time, or at
least put it into context?
That is part of the reason why the GMC's judgment on Meadow was so
fucked up.
Meadow says "here's a published research paper, here's a statistic".
The Royal Society of Statistics were saying that Roy Meadows was wrong,
well before the first appeal.
Quite so.
To quote Mr Justice Collins (speaking, of course, about Meadow):

quote
He had honestly and as he believed correctly relied on his understanding of
the statistics. He had not concealed their source and he was aware that the
defence had access to experts. He expected his evidence to be challenged
and the adversarial process to establish any errors. He never put himself
forward as an expert in statistics. While I accept that he can properly be
criticised for not making it clear that he was not an expert in that field,
I do not accept that his failure was as heinous as the FPP indicated.

unquote

Is it seriously suggested by anyone that Meadow (it should be possible to
spell his name correctly, for goodness sake) should have sought assistance
from the Royal Society of Statistics before quoting from a publication that
was in the public domain?
t***@hotmail.com
2006-02-18 20:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
quote
He had honestly and as he believed correctly relied on his understanding of
the statistics. He had not concealed their source and he was aware that the
defence had access to experts. He expected his evidence to be challenged
and the adversarial process to establish any errors. He never put himself
forward as an expert in statistics. While I accept that he can properly be
criticised for not making it clear that he was not an expert in that field,
I do not accept that his failure was as heinous as the FPP indicated.
unquote
Is it seriously suggested by anyone that Meadow (it should be possible to
spell his name correctly, for goodness sake) should have sought assistance
from the Royal Society of Statistics before quoting from a publication that
was in the public domain?
He should have kept to his field of expertise instead of posing as an
expert on something the jury did not know was beyond him. Quite
obviously the jury was swayed by his authority. This has been a bee in
your bonnet for some time but you cannot get away from the fact that
he was believed because of his stature and so other stuff he threw in
was believed too and the fact that he was obviously not on the side of
the defendant would also have swayed a jury into believing any
nonsense he might have uttered too. The Judge and all the lawyers were
not of his stature in his field so it is not possible to blame them
for his mistake. It might be excusable if he was giving evidence about
a parking offence but no way should he have been so cavalier in a
murder trial and if I was Sally Clarkes father I would have done
exactly the same as he did.
pete
The Todal
2006-02-18 15:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Helen
Post by The Todal
Post by u***@writeme.com
Post by Derek Hornby
Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins his appeal against the GMC's decision to strike
him off the medical register.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/4720334.stm
Expert witnesses in a court case will no longer be held to account for
their opinions, following a ruling today that has seen Professor Sir Roy
Meadow restored to the medical register.
The consultant paediatrician had been an expert witness in a number of
high profile cases including that of Donna Anthony, Angela Canning and
Trupti Patel, but it was his evidence in the case of Sally Clark that
led him to be found guilty by the GMC of gross professional misconduct,
and struck off.
Today Mr Justice Collins reversed that decision, and in doing so set a
new legal precedent. will change, fundamentally, court cases which use expert
witnesses?
Regardless of the fact that the 73 million to one statistic was
completely wrong, why is anyone so impressed by it?
The odds of someone winning the lottery are 54 million to 1, yet it
seems to happen every week.
Why didn't the defense challenge this statistic at the time, or at
least put it into context?
That is part of the reason why the GMC's judgment on Meadow was so fucked
up.
Meadow says "here's a published research paper, here's a statistic".
The Royal Society of Statistics were saying that Roy Meadows was wrong,
well before the first appeal.
And why involve the Royal Society when, as you would say, a first year
undergraduate could understand the flaws?

You are still missing the point.

The basis of the statistics was clear from the context in which they were
provided. The defence expert explained to the jury:

He agreed that two SIDS deaths in one family would be "... unusual, but not
very unusual ...", but "... we are talking about statistics here which
generally speaking are not of great value in the individual case." He made
the point that that he did not believe that statistics enables you to
determine whether the death was natural. He agreed that SIDS did not
usually repeat in families. While he accepted the 1 in 8,543 statistic in
relation to the first SIDS death in low risk families, because this was an
observed figure, he considered the squaring of that figure to calculate the
risks of a second SIDS death to be an illegitimate oversimplification which
a sentence of the Study warned against:
"This does not take account of possible familial incidence of factors other
than those included in the Table."

If, after this corrective evidence, there was still a risk that the jury
would be prejudiced by the 1 in 73 million figure, the lawyers could have
asked for a stronger direction from the judge or indeed for the jury to be
discharged.
Dave (from the UK)
2006-02-19 18:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Helen
The Royal Society of Statistics were saying that Roy Meadows was wrong,
well before the first appeal.
And why involve the Royal Society when, as you would say, a first year
undergraduate could understand the flaws?
Few people who don't know the field would accept the opinion of a first
your undergrad in preference to that of a professor.
I'm sure many school children can see the statistic is flawed, but few
will value their opinion as much.

In contrast, an opinion from a Royal Society would have a bit more
"weight" attached to it than from a first year undergrad or school child.
--
Dave K

Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert (MCSE).

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-***@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.
The Todal
2006-02-19 19:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave (from the UK)
Post by The Todal
Post by Helen
The Royal Society of Statistics were saying that Roy Meadows was wrong,
well before the first appeal.
And why involve the Royal Society when, as you would say, a first year
undergraduate could understand the flaws?
Few people who don't know the field would accept the opinion of a first
your undergrad in preference to that of a professor.
I'm sure many school children can see the statistic is flawed, but few
will value their opinion as much.
In contrast, an opinion from a Royal Society would have a bit more
"weight" attached to it than from a first year undergrad or school child.
Okay. I think I agree. If you are a journalist trying to grapple with the
topic and finish your article so that you can get down to the pub, a quote
from a Royal Society will be more pleasing to your editor than a quote from
a primary school teacher.
elizabeth lucy
2006-02-18 22:32:55 UTC
Permalink
more than that. www.mama2.org
Post by Helen
Post by The Todal
Post by u***@writeme.com
Post by Derek Hornby
Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins his appeal against the GMC's decision to strike
him off the medical register.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/4720334.stm
Expert witnesses in a court case will no longer be held to account for
their opinions, following a ruling today that has seen Professor Sir Roy
Meadow restored to the medical register.
The consultant paediatrician had been an expert witness in a number of
high profile cases including that of Donna Anthony, Angela Canning and
Trupti Patel, but it was his evidence in the case of Sally Clark that
led him to be found guilty by the GMC of gross professional misconduct,
and struck off.
Today Mr Justice Collins reversed that decision, and in doing so set a
new legal precedent. will change, fundamentally, court cases which use expert
witnesses?
Regardless of the fact that the 73 million to one statistic was
completely wrong, why is anyone so impressed by it?
The odds of someone winning the lottery are 54 million to 1, yet it
seems to happen every week.
Why didn't the defense challenge this statistic at the time, or at
least put it into context?
That is part of the reason why the GMC's judgment on Meadow was so fucked
up.
Meadow says "here's a published research paper, here's a statistic".
The Royal Society of Statistics were saying that Roy Meadows was wrong,
well before the first appeal.
MM
2006-02-19 18:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by u***@writeme.com
Post by Derek Hornby
Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins his appeal against the GMC's decision to strike
him off the medical register.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/4720334.stm
Expert witnesses in a court case will no longer be held to account for
their opinions, following a ruling today that has seen Professor Sir Roy
Meadow restored to the medical register.
The consultant paediatrician had been an expert witness in a number of
high profile cases including that of Donna Anthony, Angela Canning and
Trupti Patel, but it was his evidence in the case of Sally Clark that
led him to be found guilty by the GMC of gross professional misconduct,
and struck off.
Today Mr Justice Collins reversed that decision, and in doing so set a
new legal precedent. will change, fundamentally, court cases which use expert
witnesses?
Regardless of the fact that the 73 million to one statistic was
completely wrong, why is anyone so impressed by it?
The odds of someone winning the lottery are 54 million to 1, yet it
seems to happen every week.
Why didn't the defense challenge this statistic at the time, or at
least put it into context?
That is part of the reason why the GMC's judgment on Meadow was so fucked
up.
From all your comments, you do seem to be remarkably biased in favour
of the reinstated professor.

However, I believe the GMC was correct.

MM
The Todal
2006-02-19 19:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
Post by u***@writeme.com
Post by Derek Hornby
Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins his appeal against the GMC's decision to strike
him off the medical register.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/4720334.stm
Expert witnesses in a court case will no longer be held to account for
their opinions, following a ruling today that has seen Professor Sir Roy
Meadow restored to the medical register.
The consultant paediatrician had been an expert witness in a number of
high profile cases including that of Donna Anthony, Angela Canning and
Trupti Patel, but it was his evidence in the case of Sally Clark that
led him to be found guilty by the GMC of gross professional misconduct,
and struck off.
Today Mr Justice Collins reversed that decision, and in doing so set a
new legal precedent. will change, fundamentally, court cases which use expert
witnesses?
Regardless of the fact that the 73 million to one statistic was
completely wrong, why is anyone so impressed by it?
The odds of someone winning the lottery are 54 million to 1, yet it
seems to happen every week.
Why didn't the defense challenge this statistic at the time, or at
least put it into context?
That is part of the reason why the GMC's judgment on Meadow was so fucked
up.
From all your comments, you do seem to be remarkably biased in favour
of the reinstated professor.
However, I believe the GMC was correct.
The GMC got it wrong and have been told as much by one of our best judges.

That means you "believe" something that isn't true.
MM
2006-02-20 11:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
The GMC got it wrong and have been told as much by one of our best judges.
That means you "believe" something that isn't true.
Judges' conclusions are frequently overturned. Just because a judge
says something today doesn't mean than another judge won't say exactly
the opposite tomorrow. However, my *belief*, which is not dependent
upon a judge's opinion of what truth constitutes, remains unaltered.

MM
The Todal
2006-02-20 11:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
The GMC got it wrong and have been told as much by one of our best judges.
That means you "believe" something that isn't true.
Judges' conclusions are frequently overturned. Just because a judge
says something today doesn't mean than another judge won't say exactly
the opposite tomorrow.
I think I can say without fear of contradiction that this one won't be
appealed.
Post by MM
However, my *belief*, which is not dependent
upon a judge's opinion of what truth constitutes, remains unaltered.
I think you might now begin to resemble Professor Meadow. You are asserting
that the GMC were "correct" when it has been demonstrated to you that they
blundered badly by accepting the complaint and then by imposing a penalty
which approached the irrational. You are therefore trying to mislead the
readers of this group. Yet you continue to assert that you sincerely believe
you are right. You fail to show the contrition that I would expect from you.
I therefore sentence you to be pilloried in public and to be described
henceforth as "discredited".
MM
2006-02-20 19:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
The GMC got it wrong and have been told as much by one of our best judges.
That means you "believe" something that isn't true.
Judges' conclusions are frequently overturned. Just because a judge
says something today doesn't mean than another judge won't say exactly
the opposite tomorrow.
I think I can say without fear of contradiction that this one won't be
appealed.
Post by MM
However, my *belief*, which is not dependent
upon a judge's opinion of what truth constitutes, remains unaltered.
I think you might now begin to resemble Professor Meadow. You are asserting
that the GMC were "correct" when it has been demonstrated to you that they
blundered badly by accepting the complaint and then by imposing a penalty
which approached the irrational. You are therefore trying to mislead the
readers of this group. Yet you continue to assert that you sincerely believe
you are right. You fail to show the contrition that I would expect from you.
I therefore sentence you to be pilloried in public and to be described
henceforth as "discredited".
It is of no concern to me what you may think. I believe the GMC was
right, and that is that.

MM
GB
2006-02-18 12:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@writeme.com
Regardless of the fact that the 73 million to one statistic was
completely wrong, why is anyone so impressed by it?
Because, iirc, it was on the front page of the Sun the following day, in
letters 2" high. So, it must be true...
t***@hotmail.com
2006-02-18 18:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by u***@writeme.com
Regardless of the fact that the 73 million to one statistic was
completely wrong, why is anyone so impressed by it?
Because, iirc, it was on the front page of the Sun the following day, in
letters 2" high. So, it must be true...
And Meadows never attempted to correct it either.
pete
The Todal
2006-02-18 22:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by GB
Post by u***@writeme.com
Regardless of the fact that the 73 million to one statistic was
completely wrong, why is anyone so impressed by it?
Because, iirc, it was on the front page of the Sun the following day, in
letters 2" high. So, it must be true...
And Meadows never attempted to correct it either.
He was never employed as proof-reader for the Sun newspaper, surely.

I am not sure that this discussion can generate more light than heat. We
aren't likely to persuade each other. And I have never met Professor Meadow,
nor am I likely ever to.
To me, the whole affair is about the power of the press to generate a
tsunami of bullshit that can completely obscure the true facts and even
induce the GMC to scapegoat a well respected medical witness in order to
placate what it believes to be public opinion.

As with the invasion of Iraq (where the press cravenly reported whatever the
government wanted us to believe) the Press is not to be trusted to tell the
truth.
t***@hotmail.com
2006-02-19 00:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by GB
Post by u***@writeme.com
Regardless of the fact that the 73 million to one statistic was
completely wrong, why is anyone so impressed by it?
Because, iirc, it was on the front page of the Sun the following day, in
letters 2" high. So, it must be true...
And Meadows never attempted to correct it either.
He was never employed as proof-reader for the Sun newspaper, surely.
I meant he never tried to correct his evidence.
Post by The Todal
I am not sure that this discussion can generate more light than heat. We
aren't likely to persuade each other. And I have never met Professor Meadow,
nor am I likely ever to.
To me, the whole affair is about the power of the press to generate a
tsunami of bullshit that can completely obscure the true facts and even
induce the GMC to scapegoat a well respected medical witness in order to
placate what it believes to be public opinion.
As with the invasion of Iraq (where the press cravenly reported whatever the
government wanted us to believe) the Press is not to be trusted to tell the
truth.
You know my views on Iraq:-) I am the last to be persuaded of anything
by a newspaper headline but you are correct, this disagreement is
generating nothing worthwhile.
pete
MM
2006-02-19 18:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
He was never employed as proof-reader for the Sun newspaper, surely.
Such flippancy makes me believe the GMC even more!

MM
The Todal
2006-02-19 19:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
He was never employed as proof-reader for the Sun newspaper, surely.
Such flippancy makes me believe the GMC even more!
Am I bovvered?
MM
2006-02-20 11:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
He was never employed as proof-reader for the Sun newspaper, surely.
Such flippancy makes me believe the GMC even more!
Am I bovvered?
Such additional flippancy indicates that your case is weak indeed.

MM
a2z
2006-02-18 09:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Hornby
Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins his appeal against the GMC's decision to strike
him off the medical register.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/4720334.stm
Expert witnesses in a court case will no longer be held to account for
their opinions, following a ruling today that has seen Professor Sir Roy
Meadow restored to the medical register.
The consultant paediatrician had been an expert witness in a number of
high profile cases including that of Donna Anthony, Angela Canning and
Trupti Patel, but it was his evidence in the case of Sally Clark that
led him to be found guilty by the GMC of gross professional misconduct,
and struck off.
Today Mr Justice Collins reversed that decision, and in doing so set a
new legal precedent. will change, fundamentally, court cases which use expert
witnesses?
Derek
What is your question? That last sentence doesn't make sense.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...