The former Tory MP Sir David Davies has spent three months reviewing the evidence on the convicted murdered Lucy Letby.
Letby is a former nurse and was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempted murder of seven other between June 2015 and June 2016, she found guilty in August 2023 and sentenced to life in prison.
The former Shadow Home Secretary said “judging on the evidence” he believes there is a very high chance that Letby is innocent.
Sir David who is also ex 21 SAS said there is “most likely 90 odd per cent” that Letby is “not guilty” of the crimes she was convicted for.
Speaking to Christopher Hope on GB News, Davis said, “I haven’t met with her [Letby]. I’m not worried about it.
“People have asked, would I meet with her? I said yes, if she wants to, but I don’t.
“I’m not going to make a judgment of her innocence or guilt by looking at her and saying are you guilty?
“I’m judging on the on the evidence. I spent three months going through the evidence.”
Davis believes there could be other explanations for the deaths of the babies, he said, “You can’t be certain, but most likely 90 odd per cent not guilty.
“The most likely reason is one of two things either poor management by the hospital or the Royal College found a superbug Pseudomonas. An investigation found that or both together. That’s much more likely.”
Peter Green, a former president of the Royal Statistical Society (RSS), previously stated, “The chart appears to be very convincing, but there are a number of issues with it.
“A big thing is that it only describes 25 of the bad events which happened in this period.
“It doesn’t include any of the events that happened when Lucy was not on duty.”
Retired consultant neonatologist Dr Mike Hall who did not give any evidence in court, believes are significant flaws in the prosecutions medical evidence, the BBC reports.
Dr Hall told the BBC, “Phrases such as the baby was really, really well were given by the prosecution expert witnesses on several occasions for several of the babies.
“And it was my view and is my view that they weren’t really, really well, they had signs of significant illness.
“I think that what the prosecution experts said was misleading for the jury. That’s not the same thing as saying that they deliberately misled the jury.”
Leave a Comment