A case of this nature is incredibly difficult to defend, whether in the family courts or criminal court. Incompetence is a debatable issue. Since the 1990s furore sparked by Roy Meadows, the pool of expert witnesses willing to challenge peers on the prosecution side has dwindled to the dimension of a puddle.
Yes, Meadows was a prosecution witness and along with David Southall were rightly discredited for their sheer hubris leading to notable miscarriages of justice, however, there is a persistence in faith in prosecution witnesses who have built careers on their work developing hypotheses that would seem to streamline complex medical cases that make it to court.
It is interesting to discover that Evans background sees him working contentious cases with input from both Meadows and Southall, I believe. From the beginning there was always the question of why LL would do what she has been accused of, and the persistent implication of "attention seeking" in the vein of FII. Yet this was never explicitly stated nor explored.
The whole investigation was focused on the idea that there MUST be an explanation for the "unexplained" collapses and deaths, despite adequate explanations being accepted at post mortem. And LL appears to fit the bill.
The simplification of the deaths down to various methods yet ruling out so many potential contributory factors would have made it incredibly difficult to bring in enough witnesses to challenge these confident yet apparently novel assertions, that's if one could find enough willing to testify. The trial might have doubled in length and complexity, and I highly doubt the Treasury would have written a blank cheque for Legal Aid. Expert witnesses do not come cheap.
Perhaps the decision not to call Hall was because LL actually had enough faith in Myers to undermine the case and get it thrown out. Perhaps as a KC his previous experience made him confident that opinion and hypothesis and character assassination was not enough to secure a conviction. I wonder if any if his previous cases had been medically complex.
Whatever the reasoning, it obviously backfired for LL.
In terms of over turning the convictions I do wonder if there us a very long con in the works. The public interest and the attention of prominent figures in relevant fields raising the alarm so swiftly after the trial is unprecedented and will have to be addressed somehow or else faith in the justice system will reach a critically low level. Along with health care provision for the most vulnerable in general.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case are perceived to be on either side, they must be addressed somehow.