To think that Lucy Letby will get a new trial?

Yes - she took this course, but there has never been any evidence to suggest it covered air embolisms.

@Oftenaddled
So if I'm understanding correctly - pathologists whose expertise is finding the cause of death didn't find any evidence of wilful injury or harm.
Dewi Evans, without examining the babies did find evidence of wilful injury or harm.....
What am I missing here?
How can anyone still be 100% certain of her guilt just looking at these two statements.. never mind all of the other anomalies

Yes. And it can't be repeated often enough, it seems - Evans and Bohin claimed to have eliminated any natural causes in order to reach their conclusions. The pathologists found specific natural causes in five out of six cases, so they clearly wouldn't have been able to find murder just because a suspect was identified.

(In the sixth case, the cause was unascertained with the possibility of natural causes or effects of medical procedure. In the seventh there was no postmortem, because consultants advised that the (natural) cause was so clear that there was nothing to learn from the procedure).

It is absolutely the basic job of pathologists to carry out post mortems in unexpected deaths looking for any and every possible cause. That's the whole point of the exercise.....

Yes and in regard to those second set of cases she did the reports but said that she wouldn't have taken the stand.

Dr Bohin acted as expert witness for the cases that were recently turned down by the CPS, and expressed surprise that they were rejected, like the Cheshire Police.

With such an unrealistic take on the evidence, she's unlikely to be much use in any future case.

That is an internet myth about Lucy Letby taking a course two weeks before (or at any time before) the deaths began, dealing with air embolism.

You'll look in vain for a source on it.

Her basic training, like any nurse's, would have told her to be aware of air embolism risks. That isn't something that would come up for the first time three years into her graduate practice.

Pathologists wouldn't need to "know there had been foul play" to spot deaths by air embolism, overfeeding, air in stomach, blunt trauma. They are all things that could happen by accident in the course of medical care or resuscitation.

No, that doesn't work. Those managers had all left by mid 2018.

The unit still hasn't been reopened, eight years on.

Or Hindmarsh - he was under a fitness to practice investigation at the last trial and he’s removed himself from the medical register.

Neena Modi, former president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, was so alarmed that she contacted Lucy Letby's defence team during the trial but never heard back. I presume they would not have been able to justify taking on a new expert at that point.

Svilena Dimitrova said that she and her contacts kept assuming there was more to come out and waiting for it, wondering if the reporting was wrong, but then realized something was seriously wrong when prosecution witnesses started talking nonsense again after the trial was over, on TV.

They are both working for the defence now. They couldn't speak out in the press during the trial because they would have been in contempt of court. Then that was shut down again shortly after when the CPS announced a retrial

So the managers closed the intensive care unit and refused to re-open it? What a great way to hide the fact they were harbouring a serial killer nurse. If they re-opened it and didn't have the same "clusters" of deaths it'd be abundantly obviously it was all down to Letby. They didn't want that getting out.

The pathologists didn't know to look for foul play. I think one of the managers had deliberately kept the fact there had been suspicions over a nurse quiet. If it'd been done forensically it would've been much more detailed.

Also, what do you make of LL's internet history being thoroughly searched and there being no mention of research about how to cause death, nothing about insulin or air embolism?

Are you forgetting she was a nurse? She learnt it all on the job. Do people seriously think she needed to research this? She'd done a course that covered the dangers of air embolism 2 weeks before baby A.

Dewi Evans is retired, Sandi Bohin said she wouldn't take the stand again, there's problems with other witnesses etc and they know that this time if they do take the stand that the defence have plenty to pick them apart with....so they would struggle to get any experts etc to put a case together.

No Dr Evans or Dr Bohin for the prosecution though. And presumably at least some of Dr Shoo Lee's panel for the defence?

The CPS has to decide whether the prosecution can make a good case. If they can't, there's no retrial

No. The CPS can choose to offer no evidence and then it's dropped.

It's totally unheard of for a reason. The entire case was a sham and an embarrassment and couldn't have been any more amateur. People have been stunned and appalled at just how amateur it was and the quality of the 'evidence' put forward.

"A fact is a verifiable, objective piece of information or an occurrence in reality that can be proven true with evidence. It is distinct from opinions, beliefs, or subjective feelings"

I don't have to have personally witnessed it no. I just need to trust the source. For example, water boiling at 100 degrees, I've seen it boil alright but I never checked that the temp is 100 degrees but I trust the sources that say that it's a fact.

I wouldn't automatically consider a conviction to be literally a fact because then in say cases such as Amanda Knox it was literally a fact she was a murderer and then literally a fact that she didn't commit the crime.