Former Cabinet ministers concerned by Letby case, Telegraph understands
Former Cabinet ministers concerned by Letby case, Telegraph understands
Following her conviction for attempted murder last week, some experts are worried about the way the evidence was presented at her trials
Sarah Knapton, SCIENCE EDITOR and Dominic Penna, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Several former Cabinet ministers have expressed concern over the conviction of Lucy Letby, the former nurse, with the issue likely to be raised in Parliament, The Telegraph understands.
The Royal Statistical Society (RSS) has also announced it will “convene a meeting” in the wake of the verdicts, stating that it was aware of “concerns” from RSS members and the wider community regarding the use of statistical evidence in the case.
In August 2023, Letby was convicted of the murders of seven newborns and the attempted murders of six other infants. A retrial which ended last week also found her guilty of the attempted murder of another child.
As revealed in The Telegraph, doctors, scientists and statisticians have now come forward to challenge how the evidence was presented to the jury.
From the comments:
Tee Plat
“As a lawyer, I’ve been uncomfortable with this from the guilty verdict. I could find no evidence that was compelling and way too much that could be shown to be unreliable. This doesn’t mean I think she did not do it, more that I can’t see how they can convict on the basis they have.”
Jon-Cameron Bates
“I think people just look at her demeanour and feel sorry for her. Then find some conspiracy theory to match and be convinced that she is innocent. I don't buy it. I see her as a monster who cruelly killed innocent babies and deprived them of the life they deserved. I hope she never sees the outside walls of a prison.”
Clare Leigh
“As a retired lawyer, I’ve never been confident about the conviction in this case. The evidence that has been made available to the public to date is astonishingly weak. A criminal conviction has to be beyond reasonable doubt, and there is a huge amount of doubt here. I now understand how women got burnt as witches.”
Chris Hayes
“I think it strange that someone goes into nursing and specialises in neonatal service to kill babies. From reading the article it seems to me that she was convicted on largely circumstantial evidence and, crucially, no direct evidence and there was no motive. Let's hope the new Home Secretary orders a review.”
Miles O.
“Armchair detectives and experts are the same as conspiracy theorists…. Lucy Letby is absolutely 100 per cent, without doubt, guilty. That this is even being questioned is abhorrent.”
Anonymous
“Just because she happened to be on duty when babies died in a failing neonatal unit does not mean she is a killer. The writing in her diary reflects the severe mental pressure she was under and needs expert psychiatric specialists to interpret. I do not believe they represent a confession at all.”
R. Bernden
“An interesting article, but I wouldn't rush to judgment based on this one report. After all, the trial jury and the Court of Appeal judges did more than read a 2,000-word newspaper article.”
David James
“The Telegraph's investigation is deserved of high praise and hopefully will bring a step towards the case and conviction being reviewed. It appears from your article Ms Letby has been let down all round by the prosecution, defence lawyers and the appeal judges.”
1 of 8
This newspaper also understands that several former Cabinet ministers are troubled by the conviction and are hoping to take the matter further.
One former Cabinet minister with a legal background told The Telegraph that several convictions based on scientific or medical evidence in recent years had troubled him.
Speaking specifically about the Letby trial, he said: “There is an increasing trend towards convictions being secured on the basis of medical evidence.
“Where there is no direct evidence of a person’s guilt, one can understand why there may be some people who are concerned about it.”
Other former ministers described the verdicts as “unsafe” and have questioned how statistics and scientific evidence was presented to the jury.
From the comments:
Tee Plat
“As a lawyer, I’ve been uncomfortable with this from the guilty verdict. I could find no evidence that was compelling and way too much that could be shown to be unreliable. This doesn’t mean I think she did not do it, more that I can’t see how they can convict on the basis they have.”
Jon-Cameron Bates
“I think people just look at her demeanour and feel sorry for her. Then find some conspiracy theory to match and be convinced that she is innocent. I don't buy it. I see her as a monster who cruelly killed innocent babies and deprived them of the life they deserved. I hope she never sees the outside walls of a
of a prison.”
Clare Leigh
“As a retired lawyer, I’ve never been confident about the conviction in this case. The evidence that has been made available to the public to date is astonishingly weak. A criminal conviction has to be beyond reasonable doubt, and there is a huge amount of doubt here. I now understand how women got burnt as witches.”
Chris Hayes
“I think it strange that someone goes into nursing and specialises in neonatal service to kill babies. From reading the article it seems to me that she was convicted on largely circumstantial evidence and, crucially, no direct evidence and there was no motive. Let's hope the new Home Secretary orders a review.”
Miles O.
“Armchair detectives and experts are the same as conspiracy theorists…. Lucy Letby is absolutely 100 per cent, without doubt, guilty. That this is even being questioned is abhorrent.”
Anonymous
“Just because she happened to be on duty when babies died in a failing neonatal unit does not mean she is a killer. The writing in her diary reflects the severe mental pressure she was under and needs expert psychiatric specialists to interpret. I do not believe they represent a confession at all.”
R. Bernden
“An interesting article, but I wouldn't rush to judgment based on this one report. After all, the trial jury and the Court of Appeal judges did more than read a 2,000-word newspaper article.”
David James
“The Telegraph's investigation is deserved of high praise and hopefully will bring a step towards the case and conviction being reviewed. It appears from your article Ms Letby has been let down all round by the prosecution, defence lawyers and the appeal judges.”
This newspaper also understands that several former Cabinet ministers are troubled by the conviction and are hoping to take the matter further.
One former Cabinet minister with a legal background told The Telegraph that several convictions based on scientific or medical evidence in recent years had troubled him.
Speaking specifically about the Letby trial, he said: “There is an increasing trend towards convictions being secured on the basis of medical evidence.
“Where there is no direct evidence of a person’s guilt, one can understand why there may be some people who are concerned about it.”
Other former ministers described the verdicts as “unsafe” and have questioned how statistics and scientific evidence was presented to the jury.
The Royal Statistical Society (RSS) has previously warned of a lack of knowledge in the legal profession over the interpretation of interpreting statistical evidence and in 2022 released a report specifically setting out how best to deal with cases of medical serial killers.
However, none of the recommendations were followed in the Letby trial.
Experts from several British universities have questioned shift pattern data used in the trial which showed Letby was present at every death and attempted murder.
Dr Alexander Coward, a former lecturer at Oxford and the University of California Berkeley, said that it was possible to take an identical number of nurses and incident rate at a hospital with 170 shifts and place any nurse at the same number of events as Letby, simply through randomness.
The RSS said it was hoping to see more collaboration between statisticians and lawyers in future.
A spokesman for the RSS said: “We’re aware of concerns raised by some RSS members and the wider statistical community around the statistical aspects of the Lucy Letby case.
“Our 2022 report highlighted the challenges of interpreting statistical evidence in medical murder cases, and it proposed several recommendations for best practice.
“We will be convening a meeting to explore how best these recommendations can be put into practice.”
Edmund Bulmer, the former chairman of the Herefordshire Health Authority, and ex-MP for Kidderminster said he had contacted Rishi Sunak personally about the matter after Letby was first convinced last year.
He said that he believed Letby was “the victim of a monstrous miscarriage of justice”.
Francis Hoar, a public law barrister, described the Telegraph investigation as “deeply troubling” and said he felt “uneasy” about the trial.
“The statistical evidence was not questioned in the way that statisticians suggested it should have been,” he wrote on X.
“Were an appeal brought on the basis of new evidence, after a successful application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the result may well be different.”
The Criminal Cases Review Commission has not yet said whether it will be looking into Letby’s case.
Comments
Post a Comment