Given the lengthy trial of Lucy Letby and the number of crimes she was accused of committing, can we really take seriously the claims, even from experts in the field, that there is simply no evidence Lucy committed any crimes?
Given the lengthy trial of Lucy Letby and the number of crimes she was accused of committing, can we really take seriously the claims, even from experts in the field, that there is simply no evidence Lucy committed any crimes?
The phrase used is prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And there's enough evidence of poor management, training and supervision to indicate that the problems in the department were larger than one Nurse. Did she murder any of those children? possibly, but we can't prove it wasn't due to neglect or the fact that the department was understaffed and poorly equipped.
I feel there's enough reasonable doubt that she should be released from prison but then I'm neither a medical or legal expert.
The phrase used is prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And there's enough evidence of poor management, training and supervision to indicate that the problems in the department were larger than one Nurse. Did she murder any of those children? possibly, but we can't prove it wasn't due to neglect or the fact that the department was understaffed and poorly equipped.
I feel there's enough reasonable doubt that she should be released from prison but then I'm neither a medical or legal expert.
I don't know why, but I've never believed her guilty, I may of course be totally wrong, but there were so many things wrong about this case. In part I think its because I've seen far to many miscarriages of justice over the years, from what looked like overwhelming evidence.