Peter Hitchens has raised serious doubts about the conviction of Lucy Letby, the nurse sentenced for crimes he suggests may not have occurred. He points to a panel of respected doctors who argue there were no crimes, and that the hospital should have been closed due to incompetence. Hitchens notes that two trials produced no objective evidence of wrongdoing, and statistical claims about her presence at deaths have been dismissed by experts.
Hitchens highlights that Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court justice with extensive criminal trial experience, believes Letby is 'probably innocent'. He questions why the courts seem reluctant to review the case, noting unusual features such as anonymous prosecution witnesses and an expert witness criticised by an appeal judge. He also criticises the BBC for barely acknowledging the challenge to the conviction.
Hitchens suggests that some parties may have a financial interest in keeping Letby guilty. He references law firms and a PR agency working on compensation for bereaved parents, which could be higher if the hospital failed to stop a serial killer. He notes that such firms often operate on a no-win, no-fee basis, with potential success fees up to 25% of compensation.
When Hitchens asked these firms if they were working pro bono, they broke off contact. He does not name them but argues it is reasonable to ask if anyone has a material interest in opposing the case's reopening. He contrasts this with the media's focus on minor crimes, suggesting a double standard.
