SC2 | Royal Statistical Society, news release embargoed until 23 October 2001, page 1. https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/Membership/Sections/2020/Sally-Clark-RSS-statement-2001.pdf
"This approach is, in general, statistically invalid. It would only be valid if SIDS cases arose independently within families, an assumption that would need to be justified empirically. Not only was no such empirical justification provided in the case, but there are very strong a priori reasons for supposing that the assumption will be false."
"The wellpublicised figure of 1 in 73 million thus has no statistical basis."
"What matters is the relative likelihood of the deaths under each explanation, not just how unlikely they are under one explanation (in this case SIDS, according to the evidence as presented)."

SC3 | Royal Statistical Society, letter to the Lord Chancellor, 23 January 2002, page 1. https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/Membership/Sections/2020/Sally-Clark-RSS-letter-2002.pdf
"A separate concern is that the characteristics used to classify the Clark family were chosen on the basis of the same data as was used to evaluate the frequency for that classification. This double use of data is well recognised by statisticians as perilous, since it can lead to subtle yet important biases."
"Two deaths by murder may well be even more unlikely. What matters is the relative likelihood of the deaths under each explanation, not just how unlikely they are under one explanation."

SC4 | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), R v Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020, handed-down written judgment 11 April 2003, paragraphs 2, 5, 6. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2003/1020.html
Paragraph 2:
"In due course, records of the results of microbiological tests performed on samples of Harry's blood, body tissue and cerebrospinal fluid gathered at post mortem were discovered. These had not featured at all in the evidence at trial because all the lawyers involved on both sides were unaware of their existence."
Paragraph 5:
"On 28 and 29 January 2003 this court heard the appeal and concluded that the convictions were unsafe and must be set aside. The Crown did not seek a re-trial and accordingly Mrs Clark was released. In view of the public attention given to this case, we stated our reasons for our decision very briefly at the time but indicated that we would give detailed reasons at a later date. This judgment sets out our reasons."
Paragraph 6:
"First and principally, the failure to disclose the information contained in the microbiological reports meant that important aspects of the case which should have been before the jury were never considered at trial."
