Sunday, February 22, 2009

Hey, How Was I To Know That Drunk Guy Sleeping In A Hedge Wasn't A Real Doctor?

Dang! Looks like the social workers have been having a little trouble with their 'expert witnesses' again, all of which means.....

Wait! I hear a whimpering from the corner. Mr Liberal would like to point out that social workers have to act on the advice of whichever totally randomly chosen expert happens to be passing at the particular moment a case comes up.

OK, for the sake of the apologists' stupid argument we'll pretend that social workers pluck out their expert advisers with a pin and a copy of the British Medical Association's members roll. That still leaves open the question of why this sort of fiasco happens so much more often here than in, say, criminal cases.

Well, for a start, real courts allow the accused to mount a proper defence, including the ability to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and call their own expert witnesses in rebuttal. Family courts? Not so much.

Ditto, the fact these courts operate in secret means there's no chance for Professor R E Alscientist to read about the story over his morning weetiflakes and contact the family's solicitor to point out the science is junk. In fact, there's no way to know how many times an alleged expert has had his evidence debunked in previous cases. The secrecy means that social workers can trot out the same witnesses again and again, no matter how dubious they are.

Of course, all of the above assumes that the experts are chosen at random. In reality, not so much. Take this case:
Meanwhile, the story of the mother begging for a lie detector test was reported in the local Press. By chance, the consultant radiologist who had treated Louise's baby girl at the local hospital on the very first day she was brought in, read the article and was appalled.

He remembered the case and the wide divergence of medical opinion, yet had never known that Louise was under suspicion or that she was to have been prosecuted. He was convinced then that the child was suffering from a rare form of cancer of the left kidney, called neuroblastoma, which could have caused the bleeding.

Dr D - as he was called in Mr Justice Gillon's judgment this week - contacted Louise's solicitor and offered to help clear her name.
Yep, the social workers dispassionately acted on the available expert testimony, except for the testimony of the guy who'd first examined the child and who, wouldcha'believe it, could utterly destroy their case. What are the odds, hey?

Also worth noting: it was only because social workers over-played their hand and went for a criminal trial that this doctor became aware the liberals were using junk science to try and steal children. If they'd kept it in the family courts, they'd have gotten away with meddling with the kids.

Bottom line, as ever: it's isn't about bad judgement, it's about a completely warped system that allows unaccountable leftist fanatics to harass the innocent on a whim.

No comments: