PETER HITCHENS: I wish someone else would ask this: What if Lucy Letby is not guilty?

Horror can blind us to doubt. For years I have angrily scorned Chris Mullin’s campaign for the release of the Birmingham Six, Irishmen wrongly convicted of the 1974 IRA bombings in that city.

I was so enraged at the vile brutality of the crime that I could not clearly see the weakness of the prosecution.

I apologize to Mr. Mullin and have learned from him that our justice system is not as good as we like to think.

So now I have to ask: what if Lucy Letby is not guilty? Actually, I really wish someone else in the national media would bring this up. I have enough enemies already. But it seems like it’s happening to me. Would it be bearable if her belief were wrong? This young woman has been sentenced to death in prison. Since her conviction, she has been subject to a number of very serious public condemnations. She has had to endure the (completely justified and understandable) anger and grief from the parents of the babies she was convicted of.

From what I know about our prisons, you’d be wrong to think her endless days in custody will be some sort of “vacation camp.” Some people, I am well aware, believe that anyone convicted of such a crime should suffer beyond the ability of a civilized legal system to punish them. Some entertain the possibility that the convicted person will be prosecuted by his or her fellow prisoners. I find this attitude distressing and contrary to Christian teaching, but it is common and those who wish it will most likely get their way.

Again, what if this happens and she is not guilty? Now, after a long and detailed trial, she has been convicted by a jury, and I have no doubt that the jury had their reasons for making their decision. I don’t criticize them. Regardless, it was a heavy responsibility.

But in the end, they made that decision almost solely based on the circumstances. I must confess that I was biased in her favor from the beginning, as I think many others were. How could this incredibly ordinary person, in a profession dedicated to human kindness, have done something so terrible? What was her motive? I have looked carefully at the so-called confession note, but I think it could equally well be interpreted as a very disturbed, lonely and scared woman describing her feelings after being accused by the police of unspeakable cruelty and of being a bad person used to be.

I am impressed that she gave evidence over many days in her own defense – something lawyers generally do not advise their clients to do if they suspect they are guilty. I am deeply impressed by the loyalty of a group of her close friends – including especially her former colleague Janet Cox – who continue to believe in her innocence and continue to say so. Under the circumstances, this requires considerable courage.

The immediate family of someone in this position has little choice but to be loyal. Friends faced with such a verdict from the jury could be excused if they said, “Well, I wouldn’t have thought it of her, but…” These friends say she is not guilty. Listen to them. Maybe they’re just right. Now I have to tell you that there have been a number of apparently expert voices raised by lawyers and scientists who are concerned that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I am not qualified to judge them, but if they are right, there are flaws in the prosecution of Lucy Letby, in key allegations about the actions she allegedly took. There are also questions about the general condition of the unit in which she worked. A body calling itself ‘Science on Trial’ has produced an interesting analysis of the case that I find quite disturbing. Recently, Dr. David Livermore, a retired professor of medical microbiology, also expressed his doubts. In an article for the Daily Skeptic website, he says, “No one who cares about justice should be comfortable with this case.”

These voices are not the only ones. I cannot now judge whether the voices being raised are idiots or geniuses ahead of their time. An experienced lawyer tells me that it is becoming increasingly difficult for defendants in such cases to find expert witnesses to testify on their behalf – following the official excoriation, a few years ago, of a particular expert who had until then often provided such evidence had delivered.

And others urge me to take note of the very similar case of another pediatric nurse convicted of very similar crimes – Lucia de Berk.

In 2003, she was sentenced by a Dutch court to life in prison without parole for allegedly killing her patients. Her initial appeal was rejected. Statistical analysis of her service patterns and apparently damning quotes from her diaries were used to condemn her. But after a six-year campaign, the medical science on which she was convicted was found to be seriously flawed, and she was acquitted of all charges.

None of this means that Lucy Letby is innocent. But if the courts of this country are going to reconsider this case, I think it would serve justice if as many people as possible remained open to the possibility that this might be the case. If she’s guilty, well and good.

But ten years from now, when she stands under the TV lights in front of a courthouse, unrecognizable after years in prison, but finally free, I would rather be among those who kept such an open mind than among those who didn’t. .

For me, King Charles’ visit to France was very shocking on two counts. His blatant partisanship on the side of the green fanatics, which was barely tolerable when he was heir apparent, looks especially inappropriate now that a major party in the state is finally beginning to understand that net zero means national suicide.

There are millions who do not share his views, and he is their King too. He must respect them by keeping his political views to himself. And his ignorant repetition of the factually incorrect claim that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was ‘unprovoked’ (this appears to be the translation communicated to the British media by the King’s Palace in French) is becoming tiresome. The State Department, which presumably provided him with this message, knows it’s ridiculous, as does anyone with any knowledge of the subject. I would have liked to see what would have happened if he had told the French parliament on Thursday that France’s disastrous war with Prussia in 1870 was “unprovoked.”

Bad old Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck knew (as do modern statesmen) that if you want a war, it is far better to get the other side to start it.