Bartholomew's Notes

From Mary Dejevsky at the Spectator:

Let me put my own cards on the table. I have no view on, or sense of, Letby’s innocence or guilt. I was not in the courtroom; I followed the case through media reports. As an ingrained sceptic and questioner of conventional wisdom, however, I am wary of the cast-iron certainties that marked this case, and the circumstantial nature of the evidence. It seemed to me that a consensus had been formed early on about Letby and her guilt that would have been very difficult for any trial to dislodge.

Most people like to regard themselves as sceptical and critically minded when it comes to “conventional wisdom”, although in some cases this is more likely to express itself as kneejerk rejectionism and conspiracism rather than genuine engagement with the details of some issue. But in the case of Lucy Letby, the “consensus” position since the trial tends more towards the view that her conviction is at the very least unsafe, as expressed in articles in sources ranging from the Guardian to the Telegraph; the Mail on Sunday even recently ran a front-page splash headlined “Police File Raises New Doubt Over Letby Guilt”.

In the past, journalists and campaigners who argued that someone convicted of some particuarly terrible crime might in fact be innocent would be met with a barrage of hostily, with accusations that they were morally defective and heedless of distress caused to the relatives of victims. Here, though, it seems more stigmatising to express confidence in the verdict, with calls for a book called Unmasking Lucy Letby to be withdrawn for sale. This reflects the general mood of Britain in 2025, not least with the Post Office scandal still very fresh in people’s minds. (1)

Meanwhile, articles supportive of the conviction can be found on the contrarian website Spiked!: there is a long article by the IEA’s Christopher Snowdon, which has been followed with a piece by Luke Gittos; both take a critical view of the recent press conference in Parliament, in which a panel of medical experts presented arguments that the conviction is unsafe (Snowden: “It is much easier to present a hypothesis at a press conference in a hotel in front of Peter Hitchens and Nadine Dorries than it is to be cross-examined in a court of law”).

Less polemical but still analytical assessments of the press conference can meanwhile be found from David James Smith the Independent and from Liz Hull in the Daily Mail (with a headline that overeggs her “DAMNING VERDICT”). On social media, the issues are being discussed critically by Dr Susan Oliver (who has also done a lot of work debunking anti-vax disinformation) and Deb Roberts.

Tortoise Media ran a piece on the case last September; on Twitter/X, Tortoise’s Ceri Thomas described the reaction to the conviction as “fascinating”, and asked whether “a trial which could have been run better (and left room for worries about its fairness) nevertheless delivered the right verdict?”

Note

1. The conspiracy milieu, of course, is certan of Letby’s innocence, but it frames itself in opposition to the media despite the slew of mainstream articles expressing doubts about the conviction. One example here is that of Dan Wootton, who writes that “If you have only followed the MSM on the case of nurse Lucy Letby and believe the narrative that somehow this beautiful blonde young woman turned into an angel of death, despite having no motive and there being no evidence of her murdering any baby, then please listen to me now”. The suggestion that Letby’s physical appearance has evidential value is probably just a troll, but it’s a particualrly grotesque and contemptible one.

Filed under: Uncategorized