So people are starting to question it. I read through the prosecution and defence closing speeches in the Chester Standard. If you read the prosecution speeches then it's no wonder the jury found her guilty. He stated things as if they were fact. Like at xpm the other nurse was out of the room and she injected air into the child. The imagining of that is horrific - but it is all just made up! Assumption based on the "expert" report by a retired paediatrician. Sally Clark was convicted on faulty expert evidence as well.
There is no evidence she did anything at all. Except work hard and do a lot of extra shifts on a unit that was drastically understaffed. And there are quality commission reports that describe what a bad state the hospital and unit was in. Doctors rounds were only every 2 weeks, they had to rely on agency staff, there weren't enough nurses per baby. There were medical errors.
The other thing the report says is that there had been unusually high numbers of both stillbirths and neonatal deaths. So there were failures and issues at the hospital generally. Lucy Letby can't have been responsible for the stillbirths! There was only one neonatal consultant out of the paediatric consultants and they had very pre-term babies they were not qualified to look after. After 2016 the status was changed so they could no longer care for the very pre term babies under about 32 weeks. One of the babies that died was only 24 weeks - and the chances of survival at that age are only 60%. That doesn't mean 24 weeks old after a normal birth, it means the baby was 15 weeks premature.
The only element that suggests there was any foul play at all (and that is dubious) is the fact they decided insulin had been given to two babies after getting a blood test result back. Both those babies survived and went home and are healthy. They were not killed by insulin poisoning as some people seem to think.
At the time the Doctors took no notice of the blood test results showing high insulin levels. They didn't get raised for another two years! So either that was bad practice or it was seen as irrelevant at the time. The other failure on the part of the Doctors was, the lab who did the blood test said that the sample needed to be sent on to Guildford to detemine whether or not it was "exogeneous" insulin (ie manufactured insulin) that had been injected, rather than naturally produced insulin. The Doctors didn't send it for that second test, so there is no evidence at all that it was injected insulin. Just that the babies had high insulin levels. So if they had suspicions, why not get the test done and get it checked out. Maybe with the first baby they just overlooked it but with the second one, months later, when they were already concerned about the number of deaths, you think the Doctors would have followed the labs advice and got the sample tested at Guildford, as advised.
There is not even any evidence that the blood test was correct as samples for insulin testing need to be frozen and tested within a very short timescale, and reading about the chaos and understaffing and sewage on the ward it wouldn't be surprising if the sample hadn't been frozen in time or tested in time.
Although that last bit is less likely if it happened twice.
I came across this as well. This is the article by Professor Livermore that is mentioned in that Daily Mail article.
The case against Lucy Letby is far from watertight, says Prof David Livermore. Many more babies died than she was blamed for, and she wasn't even on shift when a key insulin bag was changed. She must be allowed an appeal.
dailysceptic.org
and some dodgy looking couple from Liverpool with zero evidence apart from "she looked at me but didn't smile and then it seemed like seconds it may have been longer....and the alarms went off" Well how long was it exactly? 
