And right on cue, as I suspected, the death of Lucia De Berk is being used as a tactic to imply Letby is a MOJ.
When people invoke Lucia de Berk to try and suggest Letby might be in the same shoes, it makes me wonder if they've read anything at all about de Berk's case. The two are light years apart.
De Berk was convicted of poisoning one baby because his blood contained abnormally high levels of digoxin and de Berk happened to be working l on the day he died. She also had a key to the drugs cupboard. After her conviction, a doctor who reviewed the baby's notes discovered that he had been prescribed an abnormally high dose of the drug by his own doctor, and the explicit medical instructions were to give him extra doses if he seemed unsettled. De Berk had followed the prescription. She hadn't set out to do anything else. Other convictions hinged on very poor quality statistics provided by someone whose highest stats qualification was an undergrad degree, so hardly expert standard.
If Letby had given surplus insulin to a baby who had actually been prescribed it, at an abnormal dose written on the prescription, then this conversation would be very different. But she didn't. And none of her convictions are based on stats, let alone the statistical reasoning of someone whose highest qualification is a BSc.
It's also worth noting that Richard Gill overinflates his contribution to de Berk's exoneration. The flaws in the prosecution's case were initially identified by Dr Metta de Noo when she examined the relevant medical records, assisted by her brother, a university professor. Her brother wasn't a statistician by training and he wanted to get some professional statisticians in to check that his numbers were correct, but from the way Gill presents himself to the press you'd think he discovered it all by himself.