The conviction of Lucy Letby – miscarriage of justice?

Earlier this week, I was reading “Lucy Letby: Serial killer or a miscarriage of justice?” by Sarah Knapton, Martin Evans, Sophie Barnes, and Will Bolton (Daily Telegraph).

It argues that the conviction of neonatal nurse Lucy Letby may have been a miscarriage of justice.

She was convicted on largely circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence and with no (discernible?) motive. 

Nobody saw Letby harming a child, and the coroner didn’t find “foul play” in any of the deaths.

Also, it seems that the statistical evidence used was a bit questionable:

On the other hand, there is damning evidence against Lucy Letby. There is a problem with insulin. There’s no evidence this could have been “accidental”. And there is no reason other than insulin being purposefully administered, and no reason for it to have been done other than to poison. It would be attempted murder because it was likely to have been fatal if not corrected. She was also caught multiple times standing over babies as they died, without doing anything to help.

It doesn’t mean Letby didn't do it, it's not very clear how they can convict on the basis they have.

The new Home Secretary may have to order a review.