To be surprised this potential miscarriage of justice isn’t given more prominence

Paula Vennells cried for herself.

Lucy Letby also on cried for herself (when she she heard her cats names and when her doctor friend was a witness).

It’s quite the opposite I think - their feelings are the most important thing and if there has been a mistake they need to know. The pain of losing a child is so horrific to have the potential to be living your life thinking your child was deliberately harmed would make that pain even worse. It’s got to the point that there are too many questions over these convictions and it is in the public interest for a retrial .

Denial of what, though?

The press conference was an hour long and covered insulin reports, the death of one child in detail, the dismissal of Evans's opinion of one point as "nonsense".

Where does Evans say he hasn't changed his mind?

He can't, because he's on the record as having done so, with the Sun, BBC, Channel 5, and allegedly Private Eye.

Those long words are just that, words.

Where does he deny changing his mind?

‘Unsubstantiated, unfounded and inaccurate’ are his words.

they are big words but that’s a denial

You seem unaware of the letter written after the court case by the RSS

Notice he doesn't actually deny changing his mind. That's the headline, which is disappointingly misleading from the BBC.

Here's his press statement, from which the BBC is quoting.

He doesn't deny changing his mind on the evidence he produced in court about these babies, does he?

https://x.com/johnsweeneyroar/status/1868968381178671484

I'm a bit shocked at the BBC.

Mate if this was me, no one would think twice and start to believe that I didn’t do it. I guess some Brits can’t fathom that someone so ‘normal looking’ can be so evil

Yes. The NHS is a textbook example of people being promoted one grade higher than their competence, often drawn from the ranks of the 'yes-men', zero actual management training ('learn on the job' from the incompetents and sycophants who preceded you); then, once you hit 8a,(£53-60k), you move or get shuffled around the managerial musical chairs, 'procurement officer' this week, 'compliance officer' next, on repeat. No one knows what they actually do, including themselves. But they're unsackable.

The expert witness is denying this.

Expert denies he 'changed his mind' in Letby case https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo

I am not being dismissive. You are reading one post out of three, which was a reply to someone else. I have UPHELD the principal of jury trial. So why don't you answer my question - do you or do you not wish to live in a society where courts verdicts are determined by dictat or by popular opinion? I do not, and so I also uphold the right to question judgements, no matter what my opinion, or the opinion of anybody else, is on the judgement. I do not live in Russia where guilt can be determined by a dictator and questioning that can result in a death sentence. Nor do I wish to.

I have been clear that I do not personally know whether Letby is guilty or not, so I must trust the judgement of her peers. But courts have been wrong, so the right to challenge those decisons must be upheld. And that is important in any case, but especially so when she has said she is not guilty and where there is no irrefutable evidence that she did what she is accused of. Even the prosecution accept that their most "telling evidence" consists of the fact that "she was there" and a doodle that might mean many things. So I may believe that the court came to the right judgement, I may find that so many coincidences attached to one person is telling - but I do not know for a fact that she is guilty and I therefore defend her right to argue that. It is one of the foundation stomnes of democracy. And what makes us different, even if not perfect, from the governments of Russia, Afghanistan, the UAE, and so on.

I agree with this.

Many don’t want to believe that a woman, a nurse no less, could do this. It’s so abhorrent a crime.

But I was not privy to every detail as the jury were, so I am going with their decision.

Well the jury felt differently about the evidence. I don't think it's fair of you to be so dismissive.

So nine months of evidence in her trial wasn't enough?

My 18 month old said exactly the same thing!

You seem quite unfamiliar with how trials work.

How about having your baby murdered?

That seems worse.

It's in every paper and there are 3 (at least) MN threads on it.
What more do you want?

Dr Andrew garrett

cant find anything to bring him into disripute

It was you that brought them into disrepute- I can’t prove the opppsite, let’s have your information

Just to add, the statisticians only looked at a fraction of the evidence they were expert at & only commented on that aspect of the case.

Proof of their expert credentials and that they were dealing with the same information as the police and court please.

Proof of the dubious credentials of the prof of statistics please

I tend to believe a jury who sat through detailed evidence and a trial lasting many months rather than armchair detectives on the internet.

It bothers me that so many think she is innocent because she is a pretty blonde woman who doesn't look like a serial killer.