Anybody who closely followed this case who could identify for the readers here any direct evidence of these crimes, or should we read this article to imply Lucy herself might be innocent?
Child F had a bloodwork which indicated that someone gave them a large amount of insulin.
Child D’s post mortem X-ray is said to show air injected into their blood vessels.
Child L also had insulin in their blood.
I’m not an expert so I can’t say for certain how strong these evidence are. Also my understanding that while these are evidence that a crime happened, they do not tie Lucy directly to the crime. The evidence for that is circumstatial, mainly that she was the only one on duty for all the collapses said to be suspicious.
>> Child L also had insulin in their blood.
Those were not post-mortems because these two children didn't die. Lucy Letby was accused of attempting to murder them, by injecting them with insulin.
See here, towards the end of the article, a summary of accusations and convictions:
https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/children/breaking-lucy-let...
This isn't a case of relying solely on data, rather the data bear out what everything else suggests.
No, the point being made is that a murderer was able to evade detection because her employing organisation did not understand the data they had, because they did not understand statistics.