IT IS IMPOSSIBLE without actual experience to understand the horror and trauma of the parents of those real little babies who died in the Countess of Chester Hospital and became the focus of news headlines. We outsiders can fleetingly imagine this nightmare, but we can set the nightmare aside. For those parents who have to live with this reality and spend their life with the cruel ‘what-ifs’, their trauma is real and clear. Any questioning or consideration of the trial and verdict here is not in any way intended to diminish the reality of this horror from these little victims and their families. But consider the trial we should.
There was no direct evidence presented in Lucy Letby’s trial for these murders or attempted murders, for which she has been found guilty and sentenced to a whole life sentence. In a case relying on indirect or circumstantial evidence, then the evidence should be overwhelming. It’s been reported as overwhelming in the media. So what is it?
• For each of these little babies who died, post-mortems were carried out afterwards. These post-mortems were set aside during the trial, and replaced with the views of two experts, with fresh conclusions being reached in the cause of death. Such as, Dr Evans, an expert witness and retired Consultant Paediatrician who said that injected air causing air embolisms was the cause of death. Dr Evans said the research on air embolisms was extremely limited but cited one study from 1989 showing that in the sample of 53 babies, that 11% had skin changes and in one, there was pink showing. This study was extrapolated to the deaths as skin mottling was present in some of the victims. The jury were asked by Mr Justice James Goss when summing up to consider that Dr Evan’s conclusions as reliable.
• Messages found in Letby’s diary included ‘I am evil’ l and ‘I did this’.The conclusion that she was ‘evil’ and ‘she did this’ was taken as both literal and true. Interpretations such as Letby was guilt-tripping or God-complex grandiosing or self-pitying or delusional were put aside. She also sent cards and looked up families on Facebook and she also took hospital notes home. This evidence was given high status in terms of ‘a smoking gun’ in a murder trial providing what seems to be her inner confessions and real ‘self’. She was charged with murder with these notes showing her state of mind.
• Hospital doctors say that managers did nothing following their concerns.But the managers did do something. They ordered three independent reviews when concerns were raised and the conclusions were that it wasn’t Letby or a single person to blame. When Letby asked for apologies and talked of complaints to the General Medical Council, the consultants decided that enough was enough and the police were involved. Paediatrician and TV doctor, Dr Ravi Jayaram said that he has nightmares as he saw Letby standing beside a monitor doing nothing to help a baby in breathing difficulties and not acting in the way one would expect. He made no record or shared any concerns at the time.
• Letby was on the ward when the deaths happened suggesting the ‘pattern’ often referred to in the media. Patterns, coincidences and statistical rarities happen and statistically clustering can happen, which can then sometimes understood but can also occur without any cause being established. It’s possible that hospitals could find a number of such patterns if looking at staff presence at deaths. Statistical analyses were not carried out for comparison.
When the police were involved by hospital staff, the police report they took an approach which was ‘If not her (Letby) then who or what?’. Following three years of gathering the above evidence, they charged Letby. The trial took place over 10 months, grouping all the charges involving 145 days of witness testimony, 246 witnesses and 5,000 pieces of evidence and it was in this setting that Letby failed to come up with a defence.
So am I overwhelmed? The trial was based on circumstantial evidence gathered years after the tragic events, alongside respected and famous doctors’ theories and memories given as facts. This evidence would have been difficult – and maybe even impossible to refute – and that doesn’t overwhelm me at all.
Readers can comment on this article on the ThinkScotland Facebook page here.
