Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those arguments included that the suspicious deaths all lined up perfectly with Lucy Letby's shifts, that she was often caught interacting with those babies when she had been instructed not to, and that when she was taken off the ward the deaths instantly stopped. That is a level of causality checking far stronger than most Bayesian analyses.
I went down the rabbit hole on this a couple of months ago. Some of the details are a bit hazy in my memory now as it was about 2 months ago, but in the interest of playing devil's advocate... > the suspicious deaths all lined up perfectly with Lucy Letby's shifts Once a nurse has been around the ward for long enough to have seen several deaths, you can produce a table showing a set of baby deaths correlating to any…
The hospital's expert witness supposedly said the line had been cut. Dig deeper: No, the witness was asked if the damage to the line was consistent with being cut. Yes, it was, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also consistent with simply breaking.
In the end it's pretty clear the hospital tried to throw the nurse under the bus to cover up the fact that it was their shoddy supplies that killed the baby. No idea on what sort of settlement the parents got, no details on what the nurse got but it was substantial.