The case of Lucy Letby, a former British neonatal nurse, who was found guilty of murdering seven infants under her care, has drawn global media attention.
Despite her failed attempts to appeal the verdicts, various experts have raised concerns about the evidence used in her conviction.
Letby was convicted of the deaths of seven newborns and the attempted murder of seven others across two trials, according to PEOPLE’s earlier coverage.
She received guilty verdicts on 15 out of 22 counts. A retrial was initiated after the initial jury couldn’t reach a decision on one of the attempted murder charges.
Is Lucy Letby’s case another miscarriage of justice?
The ex-nurse, who was 34 years old, worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital in Chester, England, during the period of the infant deaths from 2015 to 2016.
Despite her convictions, she has consistently maintained her innocence.
According to BBC, Letby received a life sentence and recently had her appeal requests denied in court.
Several investigative reports, have raised doubts about the evidence presented in Letby’s murder trial.
The reports quote experts expressing concerns about the basis of Letby’s conviction, highlighting that it relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and expert testimonies.
One important piece of evidence was a chart indicating Letby as the sole nurse present during the 25 suspicious cases linked to her.
As stated by John O’Quigley, a professor of statistical science at University College London, the statistical analysis did not show anything unusual in the number of deaths, emphasizing that the shift chart simply reflected Letby’s duty hours.
According to reports from The Telegraph and The Guardian, additional neonatal deaths occurred during that period, but Letby was not implicated in those cases.
The excluded deaths from the chart occurred when Letby was not on duty.
David Wilson, a criminology professor emeritus at Birmingham City University, expressed his belief to The Telegraph that the data on the chart was “cherry-picked.”
Moreover, medical experts testified that the affected infants either suffered embolisms from air injections or were poisoned with insulin.
Dr. Dewi Evans, a consultant pediatrician, was the main witness for the prosecution in Letby’s initial trial.
Evans conducted an analysis of the cases involving the babies Letby was accused of harming.
The reports stated that Evans’ theory on air embolism drew partly from a 1989 paper that examined air embolisms in numerous newborns.
This research revealed that the embolisms caused skin discoloration, a feature also noted in some of the babies in Evans’s analysis of cases allegedly linked to Letby.
But two other doctors refuted the prosecution’s claim that the discoloration found in the babies indicated an air embolism.
The reports also indicated that Letby was found guilty of attempting to harm two infants by injecting them with synthetic insulin.
The Telegraph highlighted that the blood sample crucial to the case was not examined in a forensic lab and was discarded before the defense could retest it, as no foul play was initially suspected.
However, there’s still hope for Letby as her case could be investigated by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
The commission can send the case back to an appeal court if it discovers new evidence that might have influenced the verdict if the jury had been aware of it.
Olekanma Favour is a resourceful, self-motivated, and result-driven writer with a passion for crafting compelling narratives and insightful content. She loves tackling complex topics and weaving engaging stories.
When she’s not writing, Olekanma enjoys immersing herself in a good book, exploring new cuisines, and discovering new cultures.