Dear Editors,
I just saw Adam Boulton’s piece on Lucy Letby and wanted to point out a couple of obvious errors:
The New Yorker article was not the catalyst for many scientists, statisticians, neonatologists, doctors and nurses to raise concerns. They raised them immediately at the end of the first trial – unable to do so during the trial, and quickly gagged from doing so by the announcement of a retrial of one attempted murder. Only after the retrial ended were they legally allowed to do so.
To say that Letby agreed there was insulin poisoning but not by her assumes she is a highly qualified forensic scientist. Clearly not the case. She simply believed what the police told her. In fact, the evidence from the trial showed the insulin test was not conclusive of poisoning – the lab report stated further tests were needed. Which were not done.
The prosecution’s air embolism evidence was not definitive. The x-ray specialist at Great Ormond St said that, of the two deaths he was asked to investigate, he could find no evidence in one and a small amount near the spine of the second which could have been caused by the three attempts made earlier by a doctor to insert a tube into the tiny baby’s stomach button. The author of the 1989 research paper on which Dr Dewi Evans based his theories of air embolism (such as skin mottling) actually testified for the defence at the retrial. He said that Dr Evans and the other prosecution experts had misrepresented his findings.
Letby’s personal diary notes including “I’m evil, I did this” also include “I did nothing wrong…..why me…..I killed them because
I’m not good enough to care for them”. Clearly a young woman spiralling after years of being investigated, arrested several times, her career ended.
The sudden drop in deaths after Letby was removed from the unit can easily be explained by the voluntary downgrade – the hospital no longer took extremely premature babies ( some 15 weeks early). They could only take 6 week premature children which have a far higher chance of survival. An official report of the unit at the time was absolutely scathing – lack of staff, inadequate training, poor cleanliness and low availability of senior doctors. Most of the time junior trainee doctors were in charge.
“Beyond reasonable doubt” is the key phrase when incarcerating a young woman for the rest of her life, probably most of it to be spent in isolation for her own safety.
Fiona Summers
The Thirwall Inquiry must examine Dr Ravi Jayaram’s partial account on Letby
Dear Editors,
I have had doubts about the Lucy Letby verdict since the end of the trial and have since written lots of emails to people and organizations about those doubts. They were fuelled by three aspects:
a) A feeling as I read the reports that the lawyers involved didn’t “get” Miss Letby, her role and work environment (and I know that is a subjective aspect).
b) I spoke to a doctor at the time of the verdict – who was not a paediatrician – and he said that he just could not understand some of the expert medical witness testimony and had spoken to others and they couldn’t either.
c) Finally, I watched the ITN interview with Dr Ravi Jayaram about Lucy Letby and my reaction based on (very old) experience and some googling told me at best it was a very partial account which I hope will be carefully examined in the Thirwall Inquiry.
I don’t think what Lucy Letby looks like or her background really matters. I have however spoken to reporters who did checks on her prior life and can find no history of issues – if there had been, it would have been known about by the Sunday after conviction. You could not say that about Harold Shipman who had a history of Pethidine misuse/prescription forgery or Beverley Allitt who had a very chequered history prior to offences.
Another issue that has jarred is the keeping of nursing handover records which almost has a subset of arguments attached to it – some regarding it as a “hanging matter”, others saying it is not unusual and has explanation. I think the retrospective recording of information on the electronic system may have played a part. I wished really that in her hearing the NMC (Nursing Midwifery Council) had given ruling on that after consideration. But even if a breach, people break rules and guidelines (really who hasn’t?) without becoming killers or “evil monsters”.
And, as to the methods of harm, they were more varied than the insulin poisoning and air embolus by injection. A very quick check of the BBC website shows those two methods but also overfeeding with milk and air (disputed by some experts), suffocation, moving of airways and insertion of instruments to cause bleeding and forceful trauma to liver.
One of the problems with the insulin was that Miss Letby and her team agreed to the basic argument that externally produced insulin had been added. We don’t really know how they came to that agreed position and indeed whether they were qualified to come to that agreement. It is one of a number of such acceptances of evidence which puzzles some people.
And, as to the air embolus, the evidence that the CPS experts used for testimony was based on x-rays etc, produced by earlier autopsies conducted by experienced specialist pathologists and a specialist regional centre, who did not find sinister interpretation. And just reading Monday’s Times report, Dr Marnerides, the CPS pathologist, “also thought it likely that a number of babies died as a result of air being injected into their bloodstream”.
This isn’t hard photographic fact, this is a jury interpreting others’ interpretation of hard photographic fact with some degree of subjectivity.
In my very unsuccessful campaign, I have contacted a number of media newsrooms (very difficult it is too) and I have spoken to several reporters and what impresses me is how invested they are in “the guilt” and how they defend it: “You sound like a conspiracy theorist to me”, “how could so many deaths occur? If it isn’t her who else could it be”, “you weren’t in the court day after day,”. The latter I find the strangest as it seems to cut across the role of a reporter that they have such an inner knowledge they can’t share enough to be questioned on it.
Yours Sincerely,
Colin Sheward
(Interested Layman)
EU parliament results were not a catalyst for May’s resignation
Dear Editors,
In his enjoyable reflections on our need for electoral reform in the United Kingdom, Gerald Warner writes of Britain’s 2019 European Parliament election results, “The Conservatives, in a useful rehearsal for the current election, came in fifth place, with 1.5 million votes, or 8.8%, and four seats, precipitating the resignation of Theresa May as Prime Minister”.
This has been repeated so often by so many people that it has become a widespread belief. But it is a myth. Theresa May tearfully announced her resignation on the morning of Friday 24th May 2019: the European Parliament results were not counted, and declared, untill the evening of Sunday 26th May 2019.
Yours etc,
John MacLeod
VAT exemptions don’t exclusively apply to private schools
Dear Editors,
No matter what the new Labour HMG may ill-advisedly do to perniciously attack the fine institutions of private schools, I would prefer your reporting to be more accurate.
There is currently no specific private school exemption for VAT or any VAT loophole. Education of all kinds, very sensibly, is exempt from VAT.
Rather than removing a loophole, HMG will need to find some very convoluted legal drafting to achieve its class war objective.
Warren Tucker
Trump hush money trial follows the Putin script
Dear Editors,
“It may, however, come as somewhat of a relief to hear that there are still a fair few Americans hesitant to elect a convicted felon to lead their country.” – Reaction
I have no fondness for Trump, but it comes as somewhat of a relief to me to hear the 480,000 Americans sent $35 million in campaign contributions to Trump within ten hours of the verdict. The hush money trial follows the Putin script.
Pick a venue in which 85 per cent of the jury pool voted against Trump. Ignore the usual random selection procedure for selecting a judge and have the Democrats pick one with a record of decisions against the Trump organization. He, of course, denies a change of venue. Then take five alleged misdemeanors for which the statute of limitations has run, revive them in time for the election campaign and attach them to a crime that elevates them to misdemeanors for which the statute had not run. Make each monthly check written to pay legal fees, a separate felony, and you have 34 felony counts. Then give the jury three different crimes they might choose from, ignoring the fact that none might get the required unanimous vote for conviction. Tie Trump up in court for two months unable effectively to campaign, add a gag order, and you damage his campaign, with his original sin usually treated as a bookkeeping error. Just to be sure, allow salacious testimony by Stormy Daniels, none of which is in any way related to the charges.
Take a look at this article.
Irwin Stelzer
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life
