Surely it is OBVIOUS that Letby, like many others, had INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION at TRIAL.
This is a key reason for the CCRC to refer her convictions to the Court of Appeal.
Adequate representation would have obtained alternative opinions on Insulin and Air - as expressed since thanks, mainly, to journalists.
Whether a Jury would still have found her guilty or would have acquitted her is totally unimportant.
The fact that they SHOULD have heard these alternative expert viewpoints is enough.
Inadequate representation. A defence team that did not do its job.
END OF.

I don't blame the jury in 2001 because they found me guilty of an offence in London on a date when I was in New York. They were never shown the evidence. The Judge wouldn't allow it and my stupid defence did not demand the right to find the vital alibi. "You should have found the evidence before the trial" you will say. Correct. But the dates were changed during the trial. Because I'd found evidence I could not have committed the crime on the previous dates.
So wouldn't you think I should have been allowed a day or two to find whether or not I had an alibi for the new dates?
No, said my defence team, this is "standard judicial procedure".
Cunts.
Over to the CCRC.
"It's not when but whether something happened", they said.
In a case involving the age of consent? When the liar, oops accuser, could have been over 16.
Cunts.

Simply staggering that evidence proving an alibi was disallowed - it makes no sense and discredits the entire prosecution.

The inverse of the Lucy Letby case is the extraordinary acquittal of OJ Simpson. That's what an effective defence team looks like.