I don’t know if Lucy Letby’s convictions will be upheld, but I know we all have a stake in the outcome | Gaby Hinsliff
forReasonable doubt. These words carry a heavy moral burden, and so should. The jurors reserve the life of another person in their hands, and they must be convinced that there is no other rational explanation for the facts submitted to them other than the defendant’s guilt. But what happens when these facts start flashing and blurring, to hit and divide a confusing in front of your eyes?
Lucy Litty is the worst serial child in Britain, where she has served 15 life sentences for killing seven children and trying to kill seven others. But her case has become worrying about some medical professionals, as she is attractive to conspiracy theorists due to the ongoing doubts in her heart. There are things that we may never know with certainty about the last moments of these children.
However, justice – for both letby and the poor, bereaved fathers – requires a judgment though.
This week, Conservative Deputy Party David Davis, is convinced that Letibi woman takes, Host a press conference With Professor Dr. Show Li, a retired Canadian newborn doctor who was cited by the prosecution for his work to support his case, which killed some children by injecting air. An argument for me that his research on the signs of Tellet for the so -called air blockage has been misrepresented Looking already The Court of Appeal – concluded that the coloring of the unusual skin described by its paper was not the only diagnostic evidence that the claim relied on – but I do not surrender easily.
After a committee of 14 prominent doctors assembly to review the medical notes for children, he traveled from Canada to announce that letby could not be a killer because his team had not found murders. He said that all children died of natural causes or “bad medical care” on a hair unit that it could have been closed as he was not safe in Canada.
For parents, torture should be. One mother The Daily Mail was told I found “every aspect of what they do” deeply respected, including the drama of organizing a press conference: “This is not an offer, this is our true life.” It would be so harsh to make doubts unnecessarily in the families you will be inhabited.
However, if I have right, she was sentenced to death in prison because of something she did not do. When even the former director of public trials, Ken McDonald-until now The strict critic of passers -by Letby’s ruling challenge without understanding the evidence – It begins in the argument This is the general assumption that the Criminal Cases Review Committee has reviewed “you want to look at this very carefully,” which is in full swing. This is no longer just one condemnation, but the public’s confidence in everything is from the safety of maternity units to Public investigation is ongoing In the letby case, the effective performance of the courts of appeal and the use of medical evidence in experiments. It has become a kind of justice test itself.
Are ordinary jurors the right people to assess incredibly complex medical evidence like this? I have never forgotten the reports for years about the investigative investigating judge, which includes a jury, as it became clear from the questions they were asking that some jurors had been desperately lost. It was uncomfortable for everyone who watched him but painful for the parents of the child concerned, dependent on the judgment of people who do not seem to understand the evidence. To be honest, it is possible that the jury issues often end more than anyone who wants to think, because the alternative to jury bodies with all their human faults loses the right to trial by your peers. But this system requires expert witnesses that can boil technical evidence to clear and simple conditions, and here lies a danger.
In the forensic medicine account for trial, Lucy Litty revealedBBC Jonathan Kofi Moretz journalists describe the child’s confusing condition, as the original pathology specialist and the prosecutor did not agree with his case for death. The authors assigned a third -class pathology specialist, who did not immediately agree with both others. Although it is quite normal for good scholars to differ in good faith, their unknown expert added that “the courts want more people”, so the same people are very confident and repeatedly ask them. And since “everyone knows who are hawks and who are doves,” the lawyers are learning soon to contact him, depending on the answer they need.
The decisive protection remains the right to defense to summon his medical experts to challenge the prosecution, and the largest puzzle in this case remains that the defense team has not that. They assigned a report from a newborn doctor, Dr. Mike Hall, challenged the diagnosis in many cases, and directed him to interrogate. But they did not get a hall to testify, for reasons he had never understood. Instead, focus on distorting the reputation of the main claim, Retired pediatrician Dr. Dewey EvansHe accused him of being ideological and creating facts that suit his theory – the arguments that the trial judge and the courts of appeal rejected. (Mark McDonald, the new Letby lawyer, argues that Evans’ credibility has been damaged because he changed his opinion about the causes of the death of three children, Evans refuses that criticism “is uncomfortable, unfounded, inaccurate”.
The issue of abortion in justice will seem overwhelming now if the results of Lee are perfectly identical to the hall’s concerns, but it is not so simple: In some cases, it seems that more experts mean more competitive accounts. How to “track science” when he leads in circles?
This issue was never, of course, about science. Letby was the nurse that the death seemed to follow, the only present of every accident that was identified as suspicious: the death rate decreased when it was, in the insistence of colleagues, was removed from the wing. Mauritz and Kofi also concluded, conclusively difficult for her innocence like her guilt. Even Hall told them that he could not say whether she was a broadcaster.
But he also pointed out that this is not the strict question: This is whether Lucy Litabi had obtained the fair trial that both the comet and the innocence are entitled, and in his opinion it did not do so. Have the jury really heard the facts, and nothing but the facts? Until this question is answered, reasonable and unreasonable doubts can be developed.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you want to provide a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered to be published in our Messages Please section Click here.
