There was NO physical evidence of murder .. certainly no indication the diary was used to batter the children to death.
There were the very dark feelings of a very guilty parent who had multiple children die on their watch, there was a very outwardly suspicuous husband that didn't trust his wife, yes.
> where the true outcome is extremely statistically unlikely, as you point out.
What I stated, and as the Australian Acedemy of Sciences pointed out, in a country the size of Australia such a case is to be expected.
Not that it has a low chance of happening at all in a hundred years, but that it is expected to happen a few times or else something is up with the numbers.
We ground buildings because we know that lightening will strike somewhere.
It's important for the general public to understand another thing about statistics and events.
That it's "unlikely" for a random person in a population to have multiple children die due to a genetic condition isn't the thing to focus on.
GIVEN a person has had multiple children die (as a starting point of fact), then how likely is that due to a genetic condition (or other "not murder" possibilities)?
( Answer: a damn sight more likely than the first question )
There was NO physical evidence of murder .. certainly no indication the diary was used to batter the children to death.
There were the very dark feelings of a very guilty parent who had multiple children die on their watch, there was a very outwardly suspicuous husband that didn't trust his wife, yes.
> where the true outcome is extremely statistically unlikely, as you point out.
What I stated, and as the Australian Acedemy of Sciences pointed out, in a country the size of Australia such a case is to be expected.
Not that it has a low chance of happening at all in a hundred years, but that it is expected to happen a few times or else something is up with the numbers.
We ground buildings because we know that lightening will strike somewhere.
It's important for the general public to understand another thing about statistics and events.
That it's "unlikely" for a random person in a population to have multiple children die due to a genetic condition isn't the thing to focus on.
GIVEN a person has had multiple children die (as a starting point of fact), then how likely is that due to a genetic condition (or other "not murder" possibilities)?
( Answer: a damn sight more likely than the first question )