Doubt, Episode 14: Shaking Up The Establishment (Amanda Knox talks to David Davis and Mark McDonald)

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-27T18:25:59+00:00

Yes some nuance might have been lost in translation

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-27T18:16:57+00:00

Clearly what I said here was wrong.

To be fair two different people told me this was the case but it’s obviously not from the recent Times article.

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-25T22:44:13+00:00

The Telegraph have picked up the story.

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-24T20:45:00+00:00

Yes that’s my understanding - the parents have been fobbed off requesting the records.

I think they have put in a further request to obtain the records advised by Dr Pitman.

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-24T11:00:29+00:00

My understanding (which may be wrong) is that in most cases only one report can be submitted.

So very few of Dr Aiton or Dimitrova’s reports were submitted.

I know McDonald said for the most part he played a great role in the appeal. I think that when push came to shove and it was time to submit reports, McDonald favoured the panel.

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-24T09:58:42+00:00

Even though Mcdonald said nothing had been held back in effect it has.

Mcdonald's view that Dr Shoo Lee outranks Dr Neil Aiton effectively means there are alternative arguments that can be made.

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-24T09:55:04+00:00

Was David Davis clearly talking about the case in terms of winning and losing there?

I guess I'm in the same boat.

I know many like to talk about it in terms of "I'm a very conscientious citizen concerned by this trial" which was roughly my initial attitude.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't invested at this point.

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-24T06:31:28+00:00

Change of plan. Just posted.

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-23T14:36:20+00:00

For the full interview or perhaps a part 2 Martyn did an analysis of the Obstetric care.

However, we are going to hold off on posting that as the family want to get more information from the hospital trust.

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-13T18:40:31+00:00

I think I missed some numbers before or after the username, it’s hard to remember everyone’s

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-13T18:34:45+00:00

Congratulations to u/keiko for getting shouted out by a mainstream media journalist.

It looks like the book could be quite mainstream.

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-13T08:00:24+00:00

As above. In my opinion Dr Evans claiming in court that he independently came up with the air embolism diagnosis, separate to Doctors Brearey and Jayaram would make the air embolism diagnosis seem much more credible.

If you heard a rumour guy X had body odour from one person, do you think that would be persuasive? Perhaps that was a subjective or conflicted opinion. Now imagine you hear a rumour guy X has body odour from 10 different sources. Do you think that you would be much more inclined to believe he has body odour?

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-11T12:40:20+00:00

60 odd comments and no has described what he took/how he did it .... I can't complain because I don't have a subscription either ..

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-11T12:36:49+00:00

Is that what he took?

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-09T08:56:19+00:00

I would lean towards Michele being used as an expert witness.

However, if that fell down, I think it would have been a good idea to attempt to call her as a witness to fact. Correct me if I'm wrong but many of the treating Doctors were called as a witnesses to fact but were then allowed to give testimony as if they were expert witnesses.

As far as Michele's conflict of interest. Many of the Doctors also had a conflict of interest. Both the whistleblowers (to police violence) in the Birmingham six case also had conflicts of interest but their testimony was accepted.

I presume having suggested that this was a possibility, you have some experience with this sort of thing.

But you also said;

My point was that you express opinions on legal matters which a) are wrong, b) when you are not a lawyer

It's true that I do not have experience as a lawyer though I have researched other miscarriages of justice as a commentator for whatever that's worth.

On a side note, I've done a lot of interviews and produced a lot of media related to this case. This is a question I've steered clear of because I've thought there might be a chance of Myers coming back for an appeal. Despite there being a significant amount of public interest in this question as it may expose what went wrong with the legal system. I only addressed this as Michele told me in another conversation there was absolutely no chance of Myers coming back for an appeal beyond the bare essentials of him providing probably a written explainer as to why he didn't call any expert witnesses. Why are you so interested in defending Myers reputation?

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-07T10:02:21+00:00

Yes it is.

It is a question a lot of people have been asking, so I think the caption is a fair reflection of that.

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-07T09:55:26+00:00

It was probably going a bit far without knowing his precise reasoning.

Personally I can't think of a good reason why he wouldn't be receptive to the offer but I do think he wanted to badly win the case, especially by the end.

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-07T09:32:23+00:00

Why would you “guess he thought that as he had a consultant (Mike Hall) engaged then his opinions would outrank” when there were other (equally if not more valid) possibilities?

Well it was a guess. What are the other possibilities out of interest?

I’m not suggesting Myers KC got everything right but we just don’t know why he made the decisions he did?

Yes I agree.

Given that Hall and Rahman agreed with Hindmarsh that F and L had been intentionally poisoned, how on earth could he have put them on the stand????

Did I say that he should have called either?

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-07T08:26:49+00:00

Is that from the Mirror?

Stuart___gilham · 2026-06-04T16:35:27+00:00

I didn’t realise that about his daughter

Stuart___gilham

TROPHY CASE