No medical evidence’ to support Lucy Letby’s conviction, expert panel finds..

@ArishMell The trouble with this case, as well, is did the jury actually understand the evidence put to them?

@Arboven A very good question. I don't know if much help was given them by witnesses explaining the matter.

@ArishMell Exactly. And the trouble is, as well, is that medical experts will have differing opinions, but not all of them will be able to boil them down into simple terms for a jury to understand. And the lawyers on both sides will soon learn which experts to call who can do that.

@Arboven I think that's a problem for any trial relying on specialist knowledge, even when not a matter of people's lives, but I don't know what the answer to that is. Certainly not an answer better than what we have.

I recall a barrister talking of her work, on the radio. She said she would spend weeks before such a trial learning about the speciality involved, usually industrial... then after the trial would soon forget that as she concentrated on the knowledge needed for the next case.

One might hope a jury would include at least one person able to translate the technicalities into "ordinary" words for the other eleven during their deliberations; but that is a matter of chance.

However, as well as technical understanding it also needs broader thinking including knowing "risk" from "hazard" and the nature of uncertainty, and many people seem not to grasp those concepts.

@Arboven It's a problem often seen in financial trials where unless you are an expert youvreally have little or no chance of understanding the evidence. And if you want only experts in the jury it becomes much more difficult to find those jurors who either have no relationship with the accused, or accuser, or indeed a preconceived idea of guilt or innocence.

@22Michelle Indeed so. I recall someone telling me he was once a witness in a company financial hearing, and though a civil rather than criminal law case, he said the hearing largely consisted of barristers and accountants quoting cases and laws back and forth.

I think another aspect of the danger you suggest is that even if the expert juror has no personal or work connection with the accused or accuser, nor any preconceptions, he or she might still be swayed by loyalty to the profession as a whole.

@ArishMell Interesting article.
https://theconversation.com/experts-have-challenged-the-medical-case-against-lucy-letby-what-about-the-statistical-evidence-249221

@22Michelle It is, not least because it shows the key to understanding what is most likely to have happened needs appreciating statistics, probability and logic, not biology and medicine.

Thank you for that link.