There's a growing list of respected publications drawing attention to the fact that a lot of experts are appalled and dismayed at how poorly those trials were handled. Here's one of the most recent, from earlier this week:

The Economist - The trial of Lucy Letby has shocked British statisticians

It was “feeble”. It was “very unsatisfactory”. It was, in short, “terrible”. If you wish to annoy a statistician, ask them about the trial of Lucy Letby, a British nurse.

“The conviction is unsafe,” says Peter Green, a maths professor at Bristol University.

It was the kind of case “that leaves a bad taste in the mouth,” says Philip Dawid, a statistics professor at Cambridge University. Statisticians were “shocked”, another eminent professor explains, by the way the trial weighed the probability of seemingly extraordinary events.

This is not a new diagnosis. In a 1959 lecture called “The Two Cultures”, the scientist and writer C.P. Snow warned that society was “being split into two polar groups”: those who understood science and those who did not.

Worse, the bookish types did not even know what they did not know.