Article by overseas paper questioning the evidence presented at trial against nurse Lucy Letby, setting out the case for an horrific injustice having been perpetrated against her, is the first of many
When it comes to miscarriages of justice, public anger over fellow citizens being wrongly accused or, worse, imprisoned, plays a critical role. Without public pressure there is little appetite in the halls of power to reverse these dreadful injustices (Exeter University’s miscarriages of justice registry lists 466 such cases over the years, though those are just the ones that have been proven). The media thus plays a critical role (ITV’s drama and documentary earlier this year about the Post Office Scandal are cases in point).
Let us hope that today’s article in The New Yorker about Lucy Letby’s innocence (the article can also be found here) is reported widely in the UK.
Let us hope that such coverage is met with widespread public anger about how a young woman who just wanted to be the best nurse she could be was bullied by various individuals and the system generally.
Let us hope that those in the halls of power start to listen. And then to act.
It must of course be remembered that at the heart of this are the parents of the babies who either died or collapsed. They suffered and continue to suffer unimaginable trauma. And some of the babies who collapsed suffered long-term injuries.
But also at the heart of this is are Lucy Letby and her parents. They too suffered and continue to suffer unimaginable trauma.
After today, the truth of what happened on the neonatal unit of The Countess of Chester in 2015 and 2016, namely that deaths and collapses of babies were the result of bad luck and suboptimal care, is closer at hand. This will only add to the pain of the babies’ parents, as they begin to understand that there was in fact no intentional harm inflicted. As for Lucy, even if, or rather when, she is eventually exonerated, it is unlikely that she and her parents will ever recover from the nightmare of the last nine or so years.
Most of the evidence against Lucy Letby was circumstantial, whether prosecution witnesses invoking absurdly unlikely diagnoses that involved intentional harm (having ignored the findings of the original postmortems that cited natural causes) or the sinister interpretations of Lucy’s Post-It notes, diary entries, internet searches, condolence cards, etc, as well as her general enthusiasm to work hard, accept requests to do extra shifts etc. The only non-circumstantial pieces of evidence were the two blood tests which purported to prove intentional insulin poisoning. They didn’t. All the test results indicated was that further (more detailed and expensive) investigation was necessary. But since the babies in question had made full recoveries (in themselves instructive) by the time the tests results were sent back to and seen by doctors, none was done.
All miscarriages of justice are “perfect storms” in one way or another, each involving certain key elements, such as disclosure issues, ineffective counsel, inaccurate witness testimony, etc. I hate to use a theatre analogy, but Lucy’s has been a “tragedy in three acts”.
The first act was 2015-2016 which involved hospital doctors blaming a nurse for an increased number of deaths and collapses when there were other far more viable explanations such as increased activity and acuity, lower birth weights, lower gestational ages, understaffing, sewage leaks, infection, transport network issues, hospital closures in North Wales, etc.
The second act was the police investigation from 2017-2022 which involved a long since retired paediatrician (whose so-called expert testimony in a previous trial had been called “worthless” by the judge) inserting himself into the police investigation by way of an appallingly unethical email in May 2017 to his buddy at the National Crime Agency saying that he had read about the investigation and that it “sounds like my kind of case” (at trial he lied, stating that he had been approached by the police). A few months later he declared that crimes had been committed, which secured him a large sum of money at trial a few years later acting as the main prosecution expert witness (talk about a conflict of interest!) The more crimes, the longer the trial, the more money.
The third act was the trial itself in which Lucy’s legal team found itself horribly out of its depth. It is not clear quite why it found itself in this predicament. Perhaps it was because solicitor Richard Thomas (the duty solicitor assigned to Lucy when she was first arrested) worked for a local firm whose criminal practice mostly involved representing shoplifters and drug dealers. Perhaps it was because lead defence barrister Ben Myers KC had woefully insufficient medical knowledge. Perhaps it was because it was convinced it was going to win so did not bother putting its own witnesses on the stand (other than Lucy and, at short notice, a plumber). Perhaps Thomas’ firm Russell and Russell felt it did not want to waste the legal aid proceeds paying for defence experts (despite the prosecution putting forward six experts as well as countless witnesses of fact).
This three act tragedy ended with Lucy being found guilty by a jury by that time down to 11 in number and, after gridlock, allowed by the judge to return majority verdicts. On 21 August 2023, Lucy was sentenced to 14 whole life tariffs.
Since the sentencing things haven’t got much better for Lucy Letby. Main prosecution expert Dewi Evans has declared she also killed more than 200 other babies (or was it six?) The CPS announced it would retry her in relation to one of the six ‘no verdicts’, Baby K. The single judge at the Court of Appeal rejected her leave to appeal application and the three judge panel that subsequently heard the application three weeks ago is, on the basis of past behaviour, unlikely to go against him. Cheshire Constabulary has announced a corporate manslaughter investigation against the hospital. And the statutory inquiry that is asking the question, “Why Wasn’t She Stopped Sooner?” is starting this week.
It was all still looking pretty grim for Lucy. Until, that is, The New Yorker’s Rachel Aviv set the cat among the pigeons with her article today.
Comments