Journalists continuing to uncritically disseminate things said by Dr Evans. Sigh…
Short 🧵on claims made in this article.
Short 🧵on claims made in this article.
https://twitter.com/lucyletbytrials/status/1886191093252858262
Lee and Tanswell paper wasn’t used in the trial.
Dr Evans told the jury if they accepted what Ravi J said then “that’s what you get in an air embolism”.
“Q. And you base that upon what you've read, the description in the report by Lee and Tanswell, don't you?
A. Yes.”
Dr Evans told the jury if they accepted what Ravi J said then “that’s what you get in an air embolism”.
“Q. And you base that upon what you've read, the description in the report by Lee and Tanswell, don't you?
A. Yes.”
Dr Evans described this paper as “the main paper we refer, the paper we refer most commonly to”
Dr Evans articulates his “my thinking at the time” trick. He did this in court repeatedly, when any evidence would point away from Letby he changes his mind. When any allegation can’t be linked to Letby, he changes his mind.
Even his “final reports” sometimes he changed his mind on. In all *9* of his reports he said Baby C was attacked on June 12th. This includes his report written just weeks before the trial started.
At the trial he realised Letby wasn’t there and changed his mind. 5 years worth of reports just became “an opinion I expressed at the time”
That’s the whole point of the sharpshooters fallacy, he removes the ones that don’t implicate Letby.
Even his “final reports” sometimes he changed his mind on. In all *9* of his reports he said Baby C was attacked on June 12th. This includes his report written just weeks before the trial started.
At the trial he realised Letby wasn’t there and changed his mind. 5 years worth of reports just became “an opinion I expressed at the time”
That’s the whole point of the sharpshooters fallacy, he removes the ones that don’t implicate Letby.
cc: @ShaunLintern @TomWitherow @thetimes
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
