Insulin poisoning is conjecture?
Please elaborate.
The prosecution presented two test results, the only empirical scientific evidence in the case. An expert witness in court – who, when approached by the Guardian, said he could not comment – said the test results indicated that a steady flow of synthetic insulin had been administered. Biochemists testified in court that the lab that conducted them was accurate and working well.
But while the test results had provided a helpful clinical guide for diagnosing hypoglycaemia, the type of test used does not measure insulin itself. Instead it measures antibodies to insulin and can cross-react with other molecules.
Several experts challenged the use of results from this type of immunoassay test as evidence of crime, including the forensic scientist Prof Alan Wayne Jones, who is one of Europe’s foremost experts on toxicology and insulin. He has
written about the limitations of immunoassay tests in criminal convictions, and said they needed to be verified by a more specific analytical method to provide binding evidence in criminal cases.
I suspect this witness would say while it doesn't prove insulin poisoning, it is quite likely that is what happened. And that's why the defense didn't even call witnesses to dispute insulin poisoning.
Since it was all very circumstantial evidence with nothing concrete, when some of that evidence is called in to question by other experts (not failed politicians), its perfectly reasonable to want this considered to ensure a miscarraige of justice doesn't occur.
The PO Scandal pretty much should make anyone allow robust expert scrutiny after the fact..
Many people had a similar opinion at the time, any sane person could not think the Post Master was innocent when there was a paper trail showing the defecit?
The Lucia de Burk case in the Netherlands had a lot of similar evidence used as this case:
en.wikipedia.org
I don't need to be an armchair expert, I am of the opinion that the new expert testimony and criticism of the original experts by other experts in the field should be allowed and followed up on to ensure a more robust conviction.
It really didn't. That case didn't have a doctor observe Letby watch over an incubator, with a removed air tube from a baby, with the alarm turned to off to stop people realising the baby tube had been removed. The only person who could have done those 2 actions was Letby. Letby not doing anything to aid the baby when it was obviously critical because of the removal of the air tube shows intent
There was not a baby with a damaged liver, damage that could only be done with huge physical impact such as a car crash or similar.
Her case didn't have notes saying 'I killed them, I'm a terrible person'. And loads more
De Burk wasn't caught lying about bleeding coming from a babies mouth who later died. Letby was