Lucy Letby: you had to be there

The investigation into the actions of Lucy Letby, the trial process and medical experts continues to face scrutiny and criticism, much of it ill-informed and based on a very partial knowledge of the facts and totality of evidence presented at court and at the Court of Appeal.This case has been rigorously and fairly tested through two juries and subsequently scrutinised by two sets of appeal court judges. Lucy Letby’s trial was one of the longest-running murder trials in British criminal history with the jury diligently carrying out their deliberations for more than 100 hours.It followed an investigation that had been running for six years – an investigation like no other in scope, complexity and magnitude. It was a detailed and painstaking process by a team of almost 70 police officers and no stone was left unturned.Preparing for the trial was a mammoth task with 32,000 pages of evidence being gathered and medical records running into thousands of pages being sifted through. Around 2,000 people were spoken to and almost 250 were identified as potential witnesses at trial.As the case unfolded, multiple medical experts – specialising in areas of paediatric radiology, paediatric pathology, haematology, paediatric neurology and paediatric endocrinology and two main medical experts (consultant paediatricians) – were enlisted to ensure that we carried out as thorough an investigation as possible.All are highly regarded in their area of expertise and were cross-examined whilst giving their evidence in court.—Detective Superintendent Paul Hughes, Cheshire Police, 2 April 2025.Thanks for reading! This post is public so feel free to share it.Often spotted in the trenches as the keyboard war rages over Ms. Letby’s conviction — I have seen action — are variations on this argument:You were not at the trial. Unless you sat through ten months of evidence — unless you saw everything the jury saw, and looked into the whites of the defendant’s eyes — which were yellow, come to think of it — you simply cannot know the facts and cannot form a useful opinion on her guilt. It is beyond you.Advanced by those who also were not at the trial and who, by their own logic, have no better idea of what went on, it really amounts to saying:“I find the trial’s outcome agreeable and wish to entertain no further debate about it.”ImpermeabilityLike all Anglo-Saxon criminal trials, Ms. Letby’s was conducted according to arcane rules: common law, statute, the rules of criminal procedure, the law of evidence, and long established (if roundly criticised) principles governing the use of expert witnesses.These institutions are meant to, and generally do, vouchsafe justice, but are not infallible. Miscarriages of justice happen. Even outrageous ones.From this tremendous melée — the evidence-in-chief, cross-examination, submission, objection and each fork-tongued duel between barrister and witness — we expect 12 random citizens to form between them an impression sure enough to condemn a defendant — but yet at the same time so mystic and ineffable that it cannot later be explained, interrogated or rationalised. The verdict passes intractably into the record, a brute ontological fact, immune to later mortal analysis.To the question:How on Earth did she get convicted?Comes the answer:You had to be there.The Holy Spirit was upon these jurors. It may have taken