Book Recommendations

[Doctored Whatsit]

I took the plunge and have just finished reading Unmasking Lucy Letby by Jonathan Coffey and Judith Moritz and I first of all I have to say that I agree with Peter Hitchens when he called it “an excellent and open-minded study of the case.” The book is entirely agenda-free with the authors giving equal time and emphasis to the points for and against her guilt. It’s certainly an interesting read on a difficult and disturbing subject and the authors have done well in their efforts to explain the medical issues as clearly as possible for laymen readers. If only all true crime examinations were this free from bias.

Although they make it possible to ‘understand’ the medical points up to a point it’s still close to impossible for someone without serious medical knowledge (or even any medical knowledge at all, like myself) to come up with a meaningful opinion. Evans and Bohin gave their verdicts for the prosecution. Dr Mike Hall disputed many of their conclusions. The international panel disagreed with most of what Evans and Bohin had said and yet Hall disagrees with much of what the panel said. How can a genuine ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ be achieved with so much disputed evidence; evidence that was left to a jury of 12 laymen to decide on?

One of the big mysteries of the case is why, when the prosecution produced a raft of experts witnesses did the defence only call one witness - the hospital plumber! On the face of it this seems bizarre to put it mildly. They had numerous character witnesses ready and willing to testify and Dr Mike Hall (a highly respected academic neonatologist) was explaining the issues with the medical evidence but these issues were left to Letby’s Barrister to put to the court. No one doubts that Hall would have been an effective defence witness and he was expecting to testify but he was left on the subs bench. No one knows why?

One of the things that I find troubling is the human element of the case. Experts have dug deep into Lucy Letby’s background and found nothing remotely sinister and that seems strange to me although this can’t be taken as any kind of proof of innocence. Everything about Letby appears totally normal. It’s a doubt to add to the other real doubts that exist in this case but as well as the doubts there are certainly points that appear to count against her innocence.

The authors give this short summary on page 358: “If it’s unclear that she’s definitely guilty, it’s also far from clear that she’s innocent.”


How can anything be beyond reasonable doubt when some of the top experts around disagree on so much?

Is she innocent or guilty? I don’t know.

Are there doubts? Certainly.

IMO of course.

Hi Herlock,

There are numerous bewildering aspects to this case. Letby, for example, is alleged to have killed premature babies with insulin. Did the book explain how a nurse on a premature babies ward had access to insulin? She surely would never have been expected to use it, so I have no idea how could she be allowed to get hold of some? Access should surely have been restricted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

There are numerous bewildering aspects to this case. Letby, for example, is alleged to have killed premature babies with insulin. Did the book explain how a nurse on a premature babies ward had access to insulin? She surely would never have been expected to use it, so I have no idea how could she be allowed to get hold of some? Access should surely have been restricted.

Hi Doc,

I don’t think there was any kind of issue with access. It does appear though that of the evidence presented the suggested two insulin overdose deaths are considered the strongest in favour of her guilt. Neither babies were prescribed insulin so an accidental overdose can definitely be ruled out. So much disagreement on a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ verdict.