The problem with a case like this is that if it has not been conducted to the highest standards and proven beyond a reasonable doubt it does untold harm in every direction.
It piles agony on grieving parents. It may destroy the life of an innocent party. It casts doubt on authority be it judicial, criminal or medical. It adds to growing distrust of those charged with upholding our institutions who have been shown over and over again to have demonstrated self service and corruption from government down, and will put off people from working in those fields who might have "pure"motives.
There is group think, arse covering and yes "conspiracy" demonstrated time and time again for a variety of reasons, very often financial sometimes ideological.
Thanks to the Internet and access to more information than we have ever had before, the days of blind acceptance of authority are long gone, which is both a blessing and a curse. It means that in a case like this evidence should be of the highest standard possible, and frankly, the doubts being voiced by other experts, so soon after this allegedly robust conviction is an unusual occurrence.
Only Lucy Letby knows for sure if she is guilty. In the absence of confession, the circumstantial evidence may appear damning enough but on finer points of medical controversy when a judge directs a jury that if they think one death may be due to one mechanism, it's OK to apply it to other unexplained deaths, I think we're on rocky ground to be honest.
Miscarriages of justice do occur. The system is a juggernaut which, once rolling is difficult to slow down. In such an emotive case complete impartiality from all parties is almost impossible to maintain or guarantee.
Which is why transparency and scrutiny is required for the sake of all concerned.
Most people never get caught up in the system and assume it "works" as per guidelines, protocols etc. Some of us who have been caught up in it get a very rude awakening when we realise that "telling the truth" is not necessarily the answer and it becomes a Kafkaesque game of strategy. And often when we try to bring it to people's attention, the idea that our experiences are real is so terrifying and abhorrent that it's written off as delusion and paranoia or just "bad luck".
But I digress, as the point I'm trying to make is that there are grieving parents out there watching a three ring circus that apparently could have been avoided if "expert medical testimony" had been handled differently. We've been here before with Sally Clark and Angela Cannings, the Webster case etc. And that is why if this conviction is unsafe, a review is a matter of urgency.