Looking forward to Moritz and Coffey’s “journalistic sensation” - a Panorama programme that is, in essence, free advertising for their book written for their own profit - in which comments are made about baby O based not on my report itself, but on their interpretation of someone

NEW from the Telegraph | Why the medical world was ‘terrified’ to speak out over Letby case Flaws in the trial are still surfacing and some experts say there were no murders. Yet many refused to put their heads above the parapet. Archive link: archive.ph/h25GD

Stephanie C Davies MSc DipFMS BBC Panorama I've just watched it. It's not as bad as I thought. There is a lot of false balance but the bottom line is that there is some expert disagreement on the precise cause of death for some of the babies but everyone apart from Evans agrees that there was no deliberate harm.

I’ve just finished watching Panorama on Letby (Part 3). What struck me most is that - like me - they still haven’t managed to find a single expert to come out and endorse either Evans or Bohin for their theories that the deaths could only have been caused by deliberate harm and

The mention in BBC’s Panorama of tube dislodgement statistics at Liverpool Women’s Hospital (LWH) when Lucy Letby worked there was misleading at best. The first public reference to the statistics came from Richard Baker KC's opening remarks at Thirlwall, though it was interesting

Panorama, to be fair, gave quite extensive coverage to the Baby C debacle. There are a few points in the coverage that are, well, wrong. “Letby was alone with the baby” — this is not accepted by the defence. It is not accepted by Letby. None of the witnesses reported this in

youtu.be/6fm3TvRyKNE?si… 200 big problems with the prosecution case against Lucy Letby, almost all not mentioned in the BBC Panorama “documentary”.

By way of comparison, here is the original version, as it aired on Panorama on Monday, alongside the corrected version, currently on iPlayer.

This is a really incredible story. Did they know how many shifts were involved before they ran the story? Are we to seriously believe that the bbc fact checked such an important detail only after publishing? If they had the actual data before they ran the story, which they

The Trials of Lucy Letby "We understand that some breathing tubes also became dislodged on ventilated shifts where Lucy Letby was involved in the care of a baby, during her first period at Liverpool Women’s Hospital in 2012. WE DON'T HAVE THOSE FIGURES, and we have now been told the rate during that

It is not tenable to keep the entire GOTCHA section about the Liverpool tubes in the programme. It seems it has already been nixed from the BBC news website. Perhaps the better option is to pull Panorama entirely, and start an internal inquiry into how it all happened.

If Lucy Letby was responsible for a huge spike in tube dislodgements at LWH why did she pass her training? And why did the fully qualified nurses responsible for her supervision not find the huge number of dislodgements concerning at the time? Could it be because the

A profile in the Sunday Times of Mark McDonald, the barrister fighting for Lucy Letby. "McDonald is so certain 'no crime has been committed' that he is working for nothing." Share link: thetimes.com/article/ecb1f1… #LucyLetby

It does also beg the question, if the ETT dislodgement data was correct (which it is now abundantly clear that it wasn't) what Clinical Governance was in place at LWH which allowed this to apparently pass completely unnoticed for over 10 years?🤔

The Trials of Lucy Letby "targeted her in revenge" Yes. The big question is, why did the police, the CPS and the judiciary engage so enthusiastically with a couple or few of misguided or malicious Consultants, and send an innocent woman to prison? It was blindingly obvious that there were no murders.

BBC should be required to broadcast a retraction and remove this program from iplayer (rather than just re-edit it). Its statistics were wrong - it has admitted as such - and this could be viewed as prejudicial to any further legal cases (including Letby’s CCRC application).

The BBC should be required to name these anonymous alleged experts and ask them to confirm they stand by the program’s assertions or retract it in its entirety.

I hope that Miss Letby can seek redress from the BBC, Judith Moritz and her publisher who have profited from her imprisonment (as well as the perjurers Brearey, Jayaram and Evans etc) when this sorry mess of a case is finally resolved in her favour, as it will have to be.

The @bbc’s atrocious coverage of the Letby case and its complicity in this obvious miscarriage of justice will I am afraid hasten its demise, unless urgent action is taken.

Guy Rowland The article says they had to correct the error, but actually all they did was present a different incorrect interpretation.