Kathleen Folbigg: expertise on trial over notorious child deaths

My favourite example - most people fail this one - ask "There is a disease X that only 1% of the population has. We have a test for X that is 98% accurate. Forensics tell us the perpetrator had X. The suspect has just tested +ve for X. How likely is he to have the disease"................... Your answer, as a member of the Jury?.......... OK, of every 10,000 people, 100 will have X and 9,900 won't. Of those groups, 98 of the 100 will test +ve, AS WILL 198 of the 9,900 (test is 98% accurate). So we get a total of 297 +ve tests results, of who just ONE THIRD have X. But what did you the jury say?

Case like these are relatively common, such as the tragic case of solicitor Sally Clark in the UK, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark who was found guilty on the basis of flawed statistics presented by the expert witness. Could there have been other factors? For example, standard advice to sleep babies on their front, promoted by the best selling "Baby and Child Care" by Dr Benjamin Spock since the 1940s, was been credited with causing over 60,000 infant deaths worldwide up until 2005. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222341/ It is worth reflecting on the persistence of both the 50 Million physical copies, and the advice they contained, especially when the book, translated into 42 languages, was considered the "bible for both professionals and parents". "Back to sleep" campaigns in the UK (1991) and US (~1994) reduced SIDs by around 75%, but did similar campaigns take place elsewhere?