For those questioning the "slam dunk" insulin evidence, this is snipped from Private Eye, link is here: www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-4.pdf
THE first and unanimous jury findings against Letby were guilty verdicts on two counts of attempted murder by insulin poisoning. Dr Anna Milan, a biochemist at the Royal Liverpool Hospital, testifed that tests carried out at her hospital showed insulin had been given to two babies rather than being produced by the pancreas, and as they were not prescribed insulin it was either an error or deliberate harm. Her reasoning was that the tests showed the two babies had very high levels of insulin in their blood but very low levels of C-peptide. The accuracy of these tests was corroborated by Dr Gwen Wark, director of the RSCH Peptide Hormone Laboratory in Guildford, a specialist centre for insulin testing. The results were interpreted in court by Prof Peter Hindmarsh, a paediatric endocrinologist employed by the prosecution but acting for the court. He explained that C-peptide is produced with insulin in the body; it therefore follows that if there is very little C-peptide present, the insulin must have been introduced from outside. Letby and her defence even accepted that there had been a poisoner at work on the ward, but that it wasn’t her. That single exchange might well have sunk her. Neither knew about defnitive insulin tests, and they weren’t alone. As Dr Evans told MD: “I didn’t even know that there was more than one way of measuring insulin until I read the comments from Wayne Jones [see below].”
WHAT THE JURY SHOULD ALSO HAVE HEARD: Alan Wayne Jones, a professor of toxicology, is adamant that the immunoassay method used to measure insulin is insuffcient to accurately determine the level in a criminal trial, because of the risk of false results. Other experts have explained how false results using this test are even more common in neonates. Instructions posted on the Liverpool laboratory website where the samples were analysed clearly states that if “factitious administration of insulin” is suspected, the samples should be sent to a specialist laboratory for proper forensic analysis. This was never done, and the jury was never told of this failing. Far from being two barn-door cases of insulin poisoning, the blood results were not noted as suspicious by doctors at the time and were only picked up months later in a notes trawl, when it was too late to do defnitive testing. Another insulin expert confrmed to MD: “The results are, in my view, conclusive: there is no evidence of insulin poisoning.”