Yes, I agree. That's what I was trying to get at but clumsily.
That the findings were interpreted as proof of insulin being present and framed as such by the prosecution is the issue despite it being way too far down the line to test that evidence is shocking, but the prosecution used it as another "smoking gun".
When you look at the "smoking guns" none of them stand up to scrutiny. So we go to the "big picture" scenario, because what are the odds that Lucy Letby could be so "unlucky" as some have scornful asked.
I was thinking about this myself, because I have experienced a series of unfortunate events in my life and am now at a point where I rarely speak of them because listening to my story, I see people calculating those odds and wondering what it us about me that attracts such misfortune, and why aren't I rocking in the corner of a padded cell? Not going to bang on about it all as this is not "about me", I'm simply referring to it in the context of clusters of unlikely events.
I mean, there is the story of the poor bugger who staggered back to Nagasaki having been caught in the blast at Hiroshima only to get caught in the second blast. What are the odds on that? Further reading suggests official figures in the region of 160 who had a similar experience. But I bet at some point that guy dealt with scepticism and accusations of attention seeking.
Likewise Violet Jessop, a nurse who had a very bad time on the Titanic and then went on to survive two more shipwrecks. Was she spectacularly lucky to survive or unlucky to have been there?
There are statistically millions of clusters of inexplicable events out there that people aren't aware of, which you can be assured of because of the numbers of things that are reported. And dissected. And denied.
Sure people do lie and fabricate for their own gain, be it financial or otherwise. But it's impossible that all do.
So back to the evidence and this case. There is evidence that is demonstrably wrong and demonstrably ambiguous. The expert witnesses job in a criminal court is to explain the evidence to the jury to ensure they understand it not to give their opinion. It's different in Family Law cases - there the standard is the balance of probabilities not "beyond reasonable doubt" or "being sure", so opinion is allowed.
The insulin evidence was easy to present as "proof" because I doubt any person on that jury could have understood the complexities of the science behind it fully. I've tried to read round it on medical sites myself and five minutes in my brain is hurting. Explaining it in layman's terms woyld be quite the task and there are many many variables.... so the court has to rely on the expert witness to make it all simple enough for the jury, who hear "insulin poisoning" and not much else.
Then we get to the argument that the medical evidence is less important than the rest of the circumstantial evidence. But it's the medical evidence that the charges of murder hinge on in the first place. So we're back to square one.
Babies were dying and they shouldn't have been. We must establish why.
Simply saying it must be murder when there are so many other factors at play that have an impact on the events does a grave disservice to the families of the babies, and also, at this stage, to the justice system and the credibility of expert witnesses overall. (Not to mention Lucy Letby who did not get a fair trial).