by After Lucy Letby was found guilty of seven murders and seven attempted murders, questions have begun to emerge about some of the evidence used to convict the former nurse.
On Tuesday, The Telegraph examined the concerns in the arguments used to convict Letby.
In response, readers of the Telegraph weighed in on the guilty verdict.
‘Ms Letby is let down all the time’
Some readers believe that the evidence used to convict Letby was not reliable.
For example, Stephanie Findlay said: “There seems to be a problem when experts give probabilities. A juror must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, but when an expert says the probability is one in 73 million, the juror has little obligation to accept the expertise.
“However, it could be said that it is statistically improbable that anyone would win the lottery. So perhaps these probabilities should be compared to other likely events such as being run over by a bus or being killed in a train accident, so that the jurors understand that it can happen even if the odds are not there.”
The reader concluded: “If Lucy is innocent, I hope she gets justice soon.”
Similarly, David James thought that The Telegraph’s investigation would “produce a step towards the case and the conviction being reviewed”.
He continued: “It appears that Mr Letby was let down by the prosecution, defense lawyers and the appeal judges.”
Some readers were particularly concerned about the statistical evidence used against Letby.
Retired analyst Cassandra Blackley was “delighted that DT ran this piece”. Ms Blackley “repeatedly raised serious concerns about the use of shift pattern evidence to convict Letby, and repeated warnings from the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) about its validity, often to cries of dissent from other commentators . This piece is investigative journalism of the highest order”.
Likewise, “I always feel a little uneasy about this situation”, began an anonymous reader. They said his wife had worked at the same hospital until recently, and although she had not worked directly with Letby, they knew some of the staff who had worked with the former nurse were still contributing the face of his innocence.
“Secondly, the statistical evidence appears to be somewhat inconclusive. I still think she probably did it, but there’s maybe a 10-20 percent chance that this was a terrible miscarriage of justice,” the reader said.
Richard Martin also mentioned “the statistical problems” which he argues “were completely clear at the time of the original trial and conviction, and some people have mentioned this”.
“I really don’t understand why Letby was not given leave to appeal,” they said.
‘I couldn’t find any compelling evidence’
Meanwhile, T. Platt, who is also “uncomfortable” with the guilty verdict, shared his experience as a lawyer: “I couldn’t find any evidence that was very strong, and too much that could shown to be unreliable.
“This doesn’t mean I think she didn’t do it, but I don’t see how they can convict her on the basis they have.”
One reader pointed out that there were problems with trial by jurors as “fellow citizens” rather than “peers”.
Brian Harrington said: “It is highly unlikely that any member of the jury was Ms Letby’s ‘peer’, ie, with equal training, qualification and experience in neonatal medicine. Being Ms Letby’s ‘fellow citizens’ does not make them qualified to make decisions in this highly specialized area of medicine, and, moreover, an issue (as the Telegraph’s analysis stated), high statistics sophisticated.
“Even the judge is not qualified to draw conclusions from the evidence presented. I would hypothesize that the jury’s verdict is likely to be based on the attorneys they disliked the least.”
Similarly FA McWeeney had a question with the composition of the jury: “My husband and I were wondering how to find a jury for the recent trial whose knowledge did not influence the previous results .
“Juries are told to put any information they may have out of their minds but how is that really possible?”
EA Harper-Wilkes believed that Lucy Letby was a scapegoat: “This whole business reminds me of Sally Clarke – the barrister who was wrongfully imprisoned for murdering her children. It was a travesty of justice that was never discovered and she and her husband were attorneys who knew how the law worked.
“I believe it will turn out that there were no ‘murders’ but an overburdened, unhealthy and poorly managed unit dealing with very vulnerable children – and bosses looking for someone to blame.”
‘Guilty all day’
However, other readers had little doubt about Letby’s guilt.
Jon Bolton said: “Guilty all day. Yes, the stats are questionable, but they weren’t central to the conviction.”
R. Bernden thought The Telegraph’s investigation was “interesting” but would not rush to judgment on the basis of this report alone. “After all, the trial jury and Court of Appeal judges read more than a 2,000-word newspaper article.”
Hans Strand advanced his position: “Dr. Alexander Coward suggests that it is flawed by showing the days in which one incident occurred.”
“I suggest otherwise,” he said. “If the suspect is the only person present at each and every murder, that is very strong evidence of the murderer.
“We’re already here, of course, with the media and experts who know a lot about their little specialty but don’t have an overview of the whole situation going on a wild goose chase.”
Mr. Strand reflected on the White House Farm murders. “The media mounted a long campaign to free Jeremy Bamber based on the fact that it is possible to cut individual pieces of evidence and, yes, like Letby (and like most murders), no one actually saw it done . Take the evidence as a whole, however, as the jury did, and Bamber is clearly guilty.
“That is undoubtedly the case here. There was a trial, a jury heard all the evidence, a decision was reached and a sentence was passed. That’s how criminal justice works. The media should stop stirring things up for cheap drama and clicks.”
John Woods looked at Letby’s appearance: “The problem is, we expect our mass murderers, especially children, to look like monsters. But when they look like an attractive young woman, along with an air of vulnerability, we can’t believe let alone accept it.”
Reader Anne Halbert believes the legal process led to the right decision. She argued: “Looking at the chart on neonatal deaths, they are now back to the usual 0-1/year pattern. Despite all these armchair experts who didn’t have the opportunity to review all the evidence, I believe the legal process reached the right decision: guilty.”
Some readers, like Marcus Moseley, have yet to be persuaded either way. “I remain neutral,” he says. But considered the investigation as “persuasive” and “speaking truth to power.”
Marcus Jacobs said “if I had a child, I wouldn’t want to take the opportunity to take care of her”.
