A superbug, doctor shortages and a neonatal unit ‘out of its depth’: failures at Lucy Letby hospital revealed
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/08/a-superbug-doctor-shortages-and-a-neonatal-unit-out-of-its-depth-failures-at-lucy-letby-hospital-revealed
Posted by 457655676
7 Comments
Numerous experts are saying these convictions are unsafe (neonatologists, statisticians etc.). Dr. Phil Hammond said he could not find ONE scientist/doctor in his 35 year network who believed the convictions were safe. At this point, the people saying she’s guilty are the conspiracy theorists because the science is not reliable.
Autopsies were conducted in 6 of the 7 deaths and in 5 of those pathologists found natural causes. The medical evidence presented in court showing that these were murders is very flimsy. Statistical evidence was presented very poorly.
I believe there’s a good chance she could be innocent.
Government needs to push the CCRC to look at this urgently. Email your MPs.
How justice is meted out affects us all.
I do not know if she is guilty or not at this point, however the case is more complex than her initial trial made it appear to be. Her defence team were pretty poor and may have let an innocent woman go to ail by not presenting a good enough argument for her innocence. Private Eye has been documenting the issues for a few weeks recently and it is clear that the case is far from clear cut and that the state of the hospital itself was never properly scrutinised.
Wes Streeting [speaking on LBC ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hK2yfYeXGY)today called on those alleging an unsafe conviction to “do it quietly” as they patiently go through the official channels, i.e. the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Which might be entirely unproblematic if the CCRC and the appeals system generally hadn’t manifestly failed Andrew Malkinson and the sub-postmasters, with the CCRC having been described as [not fit for purpose](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/may/30/criminal-cases-review-commission-not-fit-for-purpose-lawyers-say).
There are serious questions arising from this case.
The New Yorker article on it is excellent.
When there’s not even consensus on how these babies died, let alone anyone who witnessed Letby killing them, it’s hard to see how she could be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
I do also find the lack of motive and the lack of *anything* suspicious about her life/history odd for a serial killer.
I also think the ‘I’m evil, I did this’ notes look far less suspicious alongside the other notes pleading innocence, and in light of the severe stress she was under when she wrote them.
Only the jury has seen all of the evidence
However, I find it interesting all these objections are being raised now, not during the trial
It’s almost like the defence chose not to use this evidence because they knew it was weak
Let’s not forget Letby was represented by a top lawyer
Edit: although these cases were never brought to trial, she was also accused of murdering babies in a different hospital (in Liverpool), which had none of the issues the Countess of Chester had.
So no, she’s not being scapegoated for bad hospital conditions. Both places she worked, she was accused
Edit 2: I misread, the Liverpool cases aren’t “murder” cases, rather just “suspicious incidents”
What’s nuts is expecting the man on the street summoned to jury service to be able to understand medical terminology and statistics to such a degree that they can make an informed decision on the causes of death. If experts in this field are not sure how is Dave from the pub going to have a clue?
Here we go again, the Monster is in prison where she belongs