But unexplained doesn't automatically mean murdered.
Not but it could be and for some reason you're refusing to even look at the possibility when it by far makes the most sense given all the other evidence.
Sadly premature and fragile babies do sometimes just die. If every sudden infant death was regarded as murder in the absence of any explanation, the concept of SIDS wouldn't exist, and every such bereaved parent / caregiver would be banged up without a second thought.
Only if it kept happening over and over again to the same people. And if SIDS was such a problem it would've kept happening on the same NICU unit after she was removed-it doesn't just affect premature babies.
As for the insulin - honestly not sure why I'm bothering - the test results were not to a forensic standard and further tests should have been done. No physical evidence exists to support the alleged mechanism of delivery, and the theory proposed hasn't been tested and is unproven. Plus a similar result was seen in a baby after Lucy Letby left the unit but it wasn't considered suspicious apparently. If that is your standard of proof, for all the various incidents / deaths in this case, I hope to God I never come across you on a jury as a defendant.
They were not to a forensic standard doesn't mean they were wrong. If you buy a home pregnancy test it might not be to a forensic standard but if it tells you you're pregnant 99% of the time you will be. The fact they threw the bags away and can't see what she did doesn't mean she didn't do it it just means they didn't keep the bags. If they had we wouldn't be having this conversation because they'd show clear tampering.
I'll need a source for this other "similar result" after she left I've only heard about in the last few weeks. I've also heard that someone trawled the entire hospitals insulin tests and the three we know about are the only abnormal ones to come up-all involving Letby. I'm not saying that's true either, but my point is you have to take what you read with a pinch of salt. They can't both me true.
If that is your standard of proof, for all the various incidents / deaths in this case, I hope to God I never come across you on a jury as a defendant.
Irrelevant because both the prosecution AND the defence agreed on the insulin evidence in court. But you'd expect me to be psychic apparently and know that Geoff Chase would crawl out the woodwork a year later with some new theory. If he was there at the time when it counted obviously that would change things if I was on the jury. But he wasn't. The insulin explains her doing everything else too. That's exactly why they're so desperate to disprove the insulin evidence. But they won't.