I disagree. I think you have misunderstood my point , so apologies if I wasn’t clear in my explanation.
The medical evidence is relevant to whether an AM took place because before you get anywhere near considering who committed the act and what their intentions were, you have to decide whether this baby collapsed because of something done to it by a third party (ignoring whether it was intentional or accidental, or intended to cause death), or was the collapse because of extreme prematurity or antibiotics being given later than they should have been or one of the other things the defence has said?
That is surely the first question in any of these cases and the nub of the difference of opinion between the defence and prosecution for every case (except the insulin cases, where the defence seems to accept something was done and the only dispute is whether or not it is LL).
IMO, you have to consider each case separately on the first question of whether someone has done something to each baby. Once you’ve got your group of charges where you think something has been proven to have been done, then I agree, you can consider patterns which occur across the cases.
If I was a juror, I'd have to decide if I was going to trust the work done by the medical experts, who did the exact investigation that you are describing.
What they did, through assessing the medical tests, observation notes, post mortems and staff testimonials, was to compile a report upon each collapse and death. The experts decided through this investigativeprocess that these particular charged incidents were caused intentionally and maliciously.
The jurors will have to decide if they trust this investigative process or if they agree with the defense and think the process was flawed and came to incorrect conclusions.
As to the question about having to decide this by looking at each case individually-----I think I'd tend to look at the whole pattern, not just a case by case. So for child O, for example. Besides just looking for any potential underlying medical causes, I'd also take into account any suspicious circumstances.
I would look at the fact that the very day that nurse L returned to the NICU, after 10 days, this baby had a sudden unexplained collapse. And I would take into account that the doctors had as a group decided she may have been responsible for some of these incidents.
So I would ask the question, is each baby a victim or could it be natural causes. But I would also take into account the entire set of circumstances and the pattern that was seen. JMO