Over the last few days the belief that the nurse Lucy Letby may have suffered a miscarriage of justice by her conviction on multiple counts of murder has built up quite a head of steam.
Among others, I’ve seen an article in which an MP says they believe Letby is probably innocent of the murders. It’s not all one-way traffic though, as I’ve seen another in which the commentator says she’s definitely guilty because she was subject to an extensive trial before a jury of her peers passed their judgement.
If I had to side with just one of those points of view, it would have to be the latter. The UK has a legal system in which representatives of the people hear the evidence and make a decision on guilt. That’s what happened and the decision of the jury should be respected.
That doesn’t mean I’m confident Letby is guilty though. Or innocent either.
For me, the problem in this case isn’t unique to this case. The UK has an adversarial legal system in which a judge is positioned as the referee to ensure fair play by both the prosecution and the defence.
The prosecution’s job is to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
The defence’s job is to demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt.
So whose job is it to find the truth?
Shouldn’t that be more important than convincing 12 people of guilt or innocence?
Yet no-one has that role.
Which removes an important responsibility that surely everyone involved in the case should have. Particularly in a case so emotive as the Letby case. It would be easy to understand how anyone involved in the prosecution, and even the defence, could lose their objectivity. If convinced of guilt, then confirmation bias will mean evidence that supports that view will dominate and have greater strength than anything that may run counter to that view.
Those raising doubts about the conviction are highlighting several areas of concern, including the fact that the notes presented as confessions were written on the instructions of mental health professionals and that statistics had been misunderstood.
That raises the question of why these issues weren’t better confronted by the defence.
For me though, the biggest worry about the case is the claim that the truth was actively suppressed.
At least two nurses that worked with Letby claim they were told by their bosses not to talk about the case.1 A registrar makes the same claim too. More concerning is the belief of one of those nurses that Letby was used as a scapegoat for bad practices on the ward where the deaths occurred.
Whether Letby is guilty or innocent, suppressing any source of information that can better help uncover the truth doesn’t serve the best interests of the victims.
In a case like this where the most vulnerable were made the victims, the desire to punish someone is always going to be overwhelming for many. If the full truth hasn’t been sought, it’s understandable that if only one possible perpetrator is presented then many will want them to be punished because surely someone has to be.
And shouldn’t it worry everyone that the desire to punish someone rather than uncover the truth could potentially have created one more innocent victim?