Lucy Letby’s conviction could be wrong, write Judy and Richard (Image: SWNS)
Lucy Letby murdered seven babies. Lucy Letby did not murder seven babies. Lucy Letby attempted to murder seven more babies. Lucy Letby never tried to kill anyone.
Four bold statements, two direct and irredeemable contradictions. Because doubts about the young nurse’s guilt have mushroomed from an uneasy sense that something about this case isn’t quite right, to growing belief that everything about it is very, very wrong.
The two of us have hesitated to write about Lucy Letby until now, because to allege that the 35-year- old’s multiple convictions for killing newborns were, in fact, a grotesque miscarriage of justice is a very big deal. Not to be undertaken lightly.
Added to that, a generalised sense – almost an unthinking assumption – that no criminal justice system in an advanced society like ours could get things so completely, so dreadfully wrong.
And yet… Britain has form for such horrors. The Birmingham Six. The Guildford Four. Going back further, Derek Bentley. Timothy Evans. And bang up to date, the Post Office Horizon scandal.
Lucy Letby’s case is going to collaspe, predicts Judy and Richard (Image: Getty)
And before you say: “Ah, but that wasn’t a murder case,” just remember innocent sub-postmasters lost their lives as a direct result of being falsely accused of wrongdoing. So, yes; when our criminal justice system gets it wrong, boy does it get it wrong.
And this week came the sickening sense that the Lucy Letby case may be the latest in a long line of wrongful convictions. An international panel of experts – 14 of them, no less – concluded that Letby did not kill a single baby in her care.
These world-leading specialists in neonatology and child health, reviewed every single one of the so-called murders and found – unanimously – that all the deaths had purely medical explanations. They were either due to natural causes or sub-standard care.
The case against Letby was always circumstantial. There was never a shred of direct evidence to prove she was a baby-killer. Now, the entire case against her is close to collapse. Because these were not knee-jerk findings.
Don’t miss… [DISCOVER] [POLL]
The panel trawled through each allegation with meticulous care. They were completely neutral and fully prepared from the outset for their findings to endorse the verdicts of the court. But they didn’t.
All of which begs the glaringly obvious question. What if there was no crime to begin with? What if the panel is right and each and every death has another explanation?
Did the police only examine cases peripherally involving Letby – i.e., she happened to be on duty at the time of the deaths – as it had been decided she was the culprit? A case of forcing a theory to fit the facts?
We agree with James Phillips, ’s former special science adviser. He’s called for Letby to be released on parole, saying she is “highly likely innocent” but “stuck in a Kafkaesque system delaying her release”.