Doctor’s Letter to BMJ: Lucy’s “conviction seems to be unsafe”
If you enjoy reading this blog, please leave a star rating on WealthTender. Thank you!
On the two month anniversary of the announcement of Lucy’s guilty verdicts, a doctor goes on the record. Others should follow. The tide may be turning.
Update on reporting restrictions: I have not sought legal advice about what the reimposition of reporting restrictions means for what I can write in relation to Lucy’s case but I have spoken to someone who knows about these things. The test is whether a published report poses a “substantial risk of serious prejudice.” The trial to which the reporting restrictions pertain is a year or so away (it hasn’t even started!) Also, this article is about Prof Sally Kinsey whose testimony had nothing to do with Child K (the case being retried).
On 10 October, the BMJ published a letter (https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2305) from retired general practitioner Glyn Phillips titled Letby case: why did no-one contact the police earlier?
Today, Dr Phillips sent the below letter to the BMJ.
Letter to BMJ editor by Glyn Phillips, retired GP
https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj.p2197/rapid-responses
Glasgow
Dear Editor
Given the recurring pattern of gross legal injustices in the UK, we should remind ourselves that a verdict of guilty in court is not an absolute. Unfortunately, once the verdict is announced the widespread court of public opinion forms a fixed view of certainty that justice has been done. Many will have already done so before and during the trial. We form opinion based on the reporting of the matter on TV, radio and in the press. We do not see or hear all the evidence. We should remind ourselves of the possibility that, in fact, an injustice may have occurred.
Convictions can be, and are, overturned although that usually follows a lengthy uphill struggle. Whilst appealing, the person is incarcerated and subject to all sorts of vilification and possible violence.
Accused persons are sometimes wrongly found guilty by jurors because, amongst many possible scenarios, they are presented with flawed and inaccurate evidence (1), some potential exculpatory evidence may be improperly withheld (2), defence lawyers may underperform, and judges may give inappropriate misdirection to jurors. All such events can also occur in cases where the accused did actually commit the crime.
Since recently making a comment in the BMJ regarding the consultants not directly informing the police (3), I have been contacted by experienced statisticians who are convinced that Letby did not receive a fair trial (4). My rapid response, formulated into a letter, was not intended as a comment on Letby’s guilt or innocence. I was commenting on the misuse of control over registered clinicians by management.
I do not know if she is guilty or innocent. The court justice system found her guilty. However, I am increasingly concerned that she did not receive an entirely fair trial. In that case her conviction seems to be unsafe.
1 https://www.inference.org.uk/sallyclark/NLJ.html
2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC546106/
3 https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2305
4 Elston P. The Travesty of the Lucy Letby Verdicts. Chimp Investor blog 18 August 2023.
Competing interests: No competing interests
15 October 2023
Glyn Phillips
retired GP
Oct 25, 2023
LikeReply
Oct 25, 2023
On 25 October 2023 the BMJ removed the article by John Launer “Thinking the unthinkable on Lucy Letby” (and thus my rapid response to it) for ‘legal reasons’.
LikeReply
Oct 16, 2023
It is worth noting the difference between a published BMJ letter which is protected by a paywall and an ‘eLetter’ or online rapid responses which I believe are viewable to all. The BMJ sometimes formulates a rapid response (or series of them) into a published letter, which it did with my first comment. The original rapid response remains in place and is viewable.
The second ‘letter’ as above remains as a rapid response.
On the BMJ website go to the News and Views tab – at the bottom is the link to rapid responses. There you find a search box for all rapid responses which is separate to the main BMJ search. All rapid responses regarding the Lucy Letby case can be found that way. Apologies if this is obvious knowledge to all already.Show Less
LikeReply
6 LikesView 3 replies
Oct 15, 2023
Hi Peter
Have you got the full article – the one that starts as below. Can’t access this without a membership.
Show More
LikeReply1 LikeView 2 replies
Oct 15, 2023
Thank you Dr Phillips. You give me hope . I just hope too that Lucy gets your message. It will surely give her a much needed boost. I believe her nurse colleagues also believe she is innocent and are willing to speak out, but are forbidden from doing so. Peter, do you know why this is?
LikeReply7 Likes
Oct 15, 2023
Lucy is not guilty
LikeReply
14 Likes
Oct 15, 2023
Thank you, Dr Glyn Phillips.
LikeReply
© Chimp Investor Ltd
One Comment