Respectfully, this is not how the court system works. “Belief” is from a totally different, irrational, area of human mind. Criminalistics is rational.
It is about whether the evidence collected in the process of investigation and presented at court (in this case, to the jury) meets the burden of proof.
The jury, based on the proof presented to them, came to the conclusion that Lucy was guilty.
I, based on what was presented to the public (including: very poor sanitary state of the NICU, very sick preemies, Pseudomonas Aeruginosa infestation) do not feel that the data presented to us, the public, meet the burden of proof.
Postfactum; one cannot avoid the controversy surrounding the two main experts, Dr. Ewans and Dr. Bohin. They both retired. Dr. Ewan’s, in conjunction with Letby’s case. Dr. Bohin, it seems, was made to retire because many families in Guernsey did not want her to treat their children. These facts can not be shoved aside; this is objective professional level of the two main experts, not something subjective like Lucy’s pajamas.
So: it is possible that the jury was shown evidence that we never saw. On the other hand, it is equally possible that some evidence the jury either did not know of or did not fully comprehend it. Dr. Evans knew about Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, in the NICU, but did the jurors understand the importance of this fact? So could certain evidence be not shown or explained to the jury in its fullness?
The “rod causing blue-green pus” growing in COCH NICU is straightforward fact. Everything about Lucy’s guilt is circumstantial. For me to believe that Lucy was the killer, I need to see either the photo of her doing it, or a very trustful witness who stated that they saw it. What witness did we hear from Instead? The only witness, Dr. Jayaram, apparently lied about seeing Lucy being connected to a baby’s demise. He committed perjury.
www.bbc.co.uk
