Experts call for retrial in case that rocked Britain • “Important evidence may have been missed”
Nurse Lucy Letby went down in history as Britain’s most notorious child killer. She was convicted last year, despite her denials, of seven counts of murder and as many attempted murders of newborn babies, whom she was supposed to care for as a nurse in a neonatal unit.
The murder trial, one of the longest in British legal history, began after a six-year police investigation.
But now questions are being raised about the verdict. Several experts question the evidence against the nurse presented in court. They claim, among other things, that crucial evidence may have been misinterpreted, British media reports.
Requires new investigation
A total of 24 statisticians and pediatricians are now demanding an investigation where alternative causes of death are investigated. They also want a public inquiry into why the hospital did not stop Lucy, postponed or given new directives.
One of the signatories is statistician and professor Peter Green.
“I have no idea if she is innocent or not. My concern is simply about the possibility that this would not lead to a conviction,” he told the BBC.
He is supported by the forensic expert, Alan Wayne.
“I don’t know if she is guilty or not. I don’t think anyone knows that except Lucy Letby herself, he says.
Evidence may have been misinterpreted
A crucial piece of evidence against Lucy has been that she was on duty during every suspicious death during the period.
But a number of statisticians have publicly questioned the evidence. Among others Peter Green, professor of statistics and former chairman of the Royal Statistical Society.
“A major weakness is that it only describes 25 of all the bad events that happened during this period,” Peter Green tells BBC.
Green believes that the incidents that happened when Lucy was not on duty were not taken into account. Something that could therefore change the pattern. There have been at least six other deaths, and numerous collapses, at the hospital.
The court has also not taken into account the fact that Lucy worked overtime, he believes along with other critics.
Blood samples from the babies
Another crucial piece of the prosecution’s evidence was blood samples from infants who had collapsed with low blood sugar. The prosecutor’s side believes that Lucy injected air and insulin into the children.
The tests showed exceptionally high levels of insulin and low levels of a substance called C-peptide. That combination generally only occurs when the body takes in synthetic insulin, which the prosecutor believes was the case.
Professor Alan Wayne Jones, a forensic expert, is also among those who questioned the results. He points out that the test used as evidence measures the body’s reaction to insulin rather than the substance itself.
“That test cannot distinguish between synthetic insulin and insulin produced by the pancreas,” he told the BBC.
Another expert believes that there may have been natural explanations for why the children suffered severe drops in blood sugar.
There is also a lot of information that the care where Lucy worked was not functioning well, and that the death rates were high.
Stopped accepting premature babies
Others consider it unlikely that Lucy would be innocent. This with reference to the extensive investigation that was carried out.
Six expert medical witnesses and many former colleagues have testified against Lucy during the trial. Thousands of documents were presented by the prosecutor after long investigations.
In July 2016, the Countess of Chester Hospital stopped accepting premature babies as patients.