The crimes of Lucy Letby are unprecedented in modern British history.

The mushrooming cloud of expert commentary and online conspiracy theories about her guilt is equally unusual.

The public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Letby‘s crimes, which was set up by the government last year following her conviction, will begin hearings at Liverpool Town Hall on Tuesday.

But the inquiry will not address the question – a growing one in the minds of many – of Letby’s guilt.

The former neonatal nurse was sentenced to life imprisonment last year for murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six more at the Countess of Chester Hospital between the summers of 2015 and 2016.

At a recent retrial she was convicted of attempting to murder another baby.

It confirmed her as the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history.

The judge said she was guilty of a “cruel, calculated and cynical campaign of child murder involving the smallest and most vulnerable of children”.

She had, he said, “a deep malevolence bordering on sadism”.

Letby’s attempts to appeal against her conviction have been rejected by judges. She has appointed a new legal team and plans to take her case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Her new lawyer Mark McDonald posted last week: “The day after Lucy was convicted I raised concerns. I was attacked for speaking out, even reported to my professional body.

“There are many hurdles to overcome in coming years but one day justice will be done and those wrongly convicted will be freed.”

The development had added fuel to the campaign being waged by an unlikely alliance in support of Letby’s case.

Conviction ‘not safe’

In May, before Letby’s retrial began, a 13,000-word article in the New Yorker magazine raised questions about her initial conviction. It mobilised new recruits to the army of armchair Letby pundits.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

Many of those amateur detectives turned up at Manchester Crown Court this summer to sit in the public gallery and hear the case play out.

Perhaps more significantly, a number of expert commentators, doctors and statisticians, have raised their voices in protest, in particular over the way data was presented at the original trial.

Many of their concerns predate the Letby case and, while they accept they did not sit through all of the evidence in the 10 months of that trial, they do believe reasonable doubt exists.

Dr Jane Hutton is a professor of statistics at the University of Warwick and an expert in the use of medical data in court.

She was one of two dozen experts who wrote to the government asking that the Letby inquiry be delayed or broadened.

They believe a failure to look beyond Letby risks the inquiry missing other potential causes of death of vulnerable babies in hospital.

“I am of the opinion that the conviction is not safe because of the number of statistical problems I’ve seen and because other specialists from other areas have voiced similar concerns from the basis of their own professions,” she told Sky News.

“The concern is that by taking the conviction as safe and focusing only on Lucy Letby, the reasons for the increase in the number of deaths and collapses will not be fully explored and therefore there may be lessons that could be learned which will not be learned.”

What was the evidence against Lucy Letby at her trial?

‘Distressing’ and ‘offensive’

But this increasing drumbeat of support for Letby’s cause has been labelled “distressing” and “offensive” by those who represent the families of the babies Letby was convicted of attacking.

Tamlin Bolton, who represents six of the families affected, said: “I think the facts are very clear. She has been convicted of these crimes. She has exhausted the appeals process.

“Those that have been privy to the full remit of evidence, that includes the families, the jurors and the judges in the Court of Appeal, have all maintained her guilt.

“Anything outside of that, those that haven’t seen or read or heard the entirety of the evidence, it’s merely speculation.”

She said a lot of families had been unaware of what was going on at the Countess of Chester Hospital at the time their babies died. She said they wanted transparency and accountability.

The inquiry chair, Lady Justice Thirlwall, has said her aim is to ensure vital lessons are learned and to make sure that no-one else suffers what the families have gone through.

In response to the calls to delay or alter the terms of the inquiry, a spokesperson said it would begin on schedule and “will follow the terms of reference set by the secretary of state”.

Will inquiry provide answers?

A government spokesperson said: “This was a horrendous case and there were clear failings across the NHS and with regulators.

“The Thirlwall Inquiry will review all aspects of the case and the terms of reference were agreed following wide-ranging engagement with its chair, the families affected and other stakeholders including NHS England.

“The inquiry will play an important role in identifying learnings following events at the Countess of Chester Hospital.”

Read more:
The prisoners who will never be released
Parents of Letby’s victims finally given voice

When Letby was found guilty initially, Dame Ruth May, chief nursing officer for England, said the crimes were “appalling” and a “terrible betrayal of the trust placed in her”.

“On behalf of all of us I would like to express our profound apologies to the families for all they have been through,” she added.

“The NHS is fully committed to doing everything we can to prevent anything like this ever happening again, and we welcome the independent inquiry announced by the Department of Health and Social Care to help ensure we learn every possible lesson from this awful case.”

To those who support Letby, the inquiry will be operating in a parallel universe, removed from the fundamental question of her guilt.

To the families of those babies, who live with the great pain of all, there has never been any suggestion of motive or any flicker of remorse. The inquiry might at least provide some answers.