After Lucy Letby was found guilty of seven murders and seven attempted murders, questions began to arise about some of the evidence used to convict the former nurse.
On Tuesday, The Telegraph examined concerns in the arguments used to convict Letby.
Telegraph readers have expressed their views on the guilty verdict.
‘Ms Letby is disappointed on all counts’
Some readers believe that the evidence used to convict Letby is unreliable.
For example, Stephanie Findlay says: “There seems to be a problem when experts give probabilities. A juror has to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, but when an expert says the probability is one in 73 million, the juror is almost obliged to accept the expertise.
“However, statistically it is very unlikely that anyone will win the lottery. So perhaps these probabilities should be compared with other improbable events, such as being run over by a bus or dying in a train accident, so that jurors can understand that even if the chances are very small, it could happen.”
The reader concluded: “If Lucy is innocent, I hope she gets justice soon.”
Similarly, David James believes The Telegraph’s investigation “will hopefully be a step towards a review of the case and the conviction”.
He continued: “It appears that Ms Letby has been let down on all counts by the prosecution, defence counsel and appellate judges.”
Some readers were particularly concerned about the statistical evidence used against Letby.
Retired analyst Cassandra Blackley was “delighted that DT published this piece”. Ms Blackley “repeatedly raised serious concerns about the use of shift pattern evidence in convicting Letby and repeated the Royal Statistical Society’s (RSS) warnings about its validity, often to howls of disapproval from other commentators. This piece is first-class investigative journalism”.
Similarly, “I’ve always felt a little uneasy about this case,” began one anonymous reader. They shared that their wives had worked at the same hospital until recently, and while they didn’t work directly with Letby, some of the staff who worked with the former nurse still dispute her innocence.
“Second, the statistical evidence seems a little inconclusive. I still think he probably did, but there’s maybe a 10-20 percent chance that this is a terrible injustice,” the reader said.
Richard Martin also pointed to “statistical problems” that “were certainly evident at the time of the initial trial and conviction, and that many others pointed out.”
“I really cannot understand why Letby was not given permission to appeal,” they said.
‘I couldn’t find any convincing evidence’
Meanwhile, T. Platt, who was “disturbed” by the guilty verdict, also shared his experience as a lawyer: “I found no convincing evidence and there is much that can be shown to be unreliable.
“That doesn’t mean I don’t think he did it, it’s more that I don’t see how they could convict him on the basis that they have.”
One reader suggested that there were problems with jury members being judged as “citizens” rather than “peers.”
Brian Harrington said: “It is very likely that none of the judges are Ms Letby’s ‘peers’, that is, with equivalent training, qualifications and experience in neonatal medicine. Being Ms Letby’s ‘fellow countrymen’ in no way qualifies them to make decisions in this highly specialised area of medicine, nor (as the Telegraph’s analysis notes) is it a matter of complex, advanced statistics.”
“Even the judge is not qualified to draw conclusions on the evidence presented. I assume the jury’s decisions were based on the lawyers they most likely disliked the least.”
Similarly, FA McWeeney took issue with the makeup of the jury: “My wife and I wondered how it was possible to get a jury in the last case that was not influenced by their knowledge of previous results.
“Juries are told to put out of their minds any information they have, but how is that possible?”
EA Harper-Wilkes believed Lucy Letby was a scapegoat: “This whole business reminds me of Sally Clarke – the solicitor who was wrongfully imprisoned for killing her babies. It was an injustice from which she never recovered, and she and her husband were solicitors who knew how the law worked.
“I don’t think there was any ‘murder’, just an overburdened, unhealthy and badly run unit dealing with very fragile babies – and the bosses are looking for someone to blame.”
‘Guilty all day long’
But other readers had little doubt that Letby was guilty.
Jon Bolton argued: “Guilty all day long. Yes, the statistics are suspect, but they were not the key to a conviction.”
R. Bernden thought The Telegraph’s investigation “interesting” but was reluctant to pass judgment on this single report. “After all, the trial jury and the Court of Appeal judges did more than read a 2,000-word newspaper article.”
Hans Strand expressed his position as follows: “Dr. Alexander Coward claims that an event is wrong by only showing the days on which it occurred.”
“I argue otherwise,” he argued. “If a suspect is the only person present at each murder, that is compelling evidence that they are the murderer.
“Of course, we’ve been here before, with media and experts struggling in vain, knowing a lot about their own little areas of expertise but having no overview of the whole case.”
Mr Strand commented on the White House Farm murders: “The media ran a long campaign to free Jeremy Bamber because it is possible to piece together individual pieces of evidence and, yes, like Letby (and most murders), no one saw him do it. But take the evidence in its totality, as the jury did, and Bamber is clearly guilty.
“The same is true here, of course. A trial was held, a jury heard all the evidence, a verdict was reached and a sentence was handed down. That’s how criminal justice works. The media needs to stop stirring things up for cheap drama and clicks.”
John Woods commented on Letby’s appearance: “The problem is that we expect mass murderers, especially of children, to look like monsters. But when they look like an attractive young woman, and add an air of vulnerability to that, we can’t believe it, let alone accept it.”
Reader Anne Halbert believes the legal process has reached the right decision. She argued: “Looking at the picture of newborn deaths, they are now back to the normal pattern of 0-1/year. Despite all these armchair experts, despite them not having had the opportunity to review all the evidence, I believe the legal process has reached the right decision: guilty.”
Some readers, like Marcus Moseley, are not yet convinced either way. “I remain neutral,” he says. But he finds the investigation “convincing” and “speaking truth to power.”
“If I had a baby, I wouldn’t want to take the risk of caring for him,” Marcus Jacobs said.