Nurse Lucy Letby found guilty of murdering seven babies

I found it a very dull read. Sorry! Is there any new evidence, or basically its a long-winded way of saying:

- it was only statistical evidence, which they think was flawed

• the public mood/media/etc had already judged her guilty.

I look at it from the opposite point of view, is there any evidence, except flawed statistical evidence, that points to her being guilty? And no seems to be the answer to that question.

That leads on to asking whether flawed statistical evidence makes a person guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. I have a very very hard time saying yes to that personally.

The big thing that is a bit concerning about the case is so many are under impression a crime definitely occurred. The actual evidence for murders seems pretty weak at this point.

The dumbest things said on TV cop shows:

1. We got an eye witness! Case closed.
2. All that evidence is just circumstantial!

More people have been wrongly convicted by mistaken eye-witnesses than any other cause.

Most convictions depend on circumstantial evidence. In fact, it is increasingly rare for anyone other than the victim to go into a witness box and give direct evidence of a crime.

If Lucy Letby is innocent, she did an outstanding job of incriminating herself.

The lack of defence was really very concerning and bizarre.

There was also a very interesting part of the New Yorker article that was removed following concerns raised by an English court 🧐