1 is the most likely given that 2 and 2.5 are both exercises in poor judgement that lend support to option 1.

Let's assume for a moment that everyone on Letby's side is correct, and no babies were intentionally harmed, Dewi Evans made a wrong diagnosis, and the Jury wrongfully convicted Letby. What grounds are left for her to appeal? What "new evidence" could possibly exist to exonerate her?

Dr. Lee himself testified before the Court of Appeal that it was not consistent, nor was it sufficient to make the diagnosis. The court ruled this was all known during the trial and thus did not constitute new evidence.

Who argued against it? The plumber or Lucy Letby? They were the only two people to testify for the defence.

That is exactly what I am saying. Multiple experts, one of whom wrote the paper on air embolism on which Dewi Evans based his murder theory, have spoken about the flaws in the prosecution's case. The CoA said they could have been called at trial, but Meyers chose not to.

It's not because it is bad for their case, it is because her lawyer overestimated the effectiveness of his own cross examination. The jury never heard a medical expert challenge the prosecution's theories.

The defense retained an expert that has been going public claiming the conviction is unsafe and lamenting that he was never called to testify. The defense also had an expert testify at her application for appeal that denounced the prosecution experts theories on air embolism.

And only cuffing one door handle, so everyone just walked past and through the other door. 🤪

How do they plan to cross? Are there any bridges still intact?

The first judge to deny her appeal was the prosecutor in the Sally Clark trial. 😬