Amanda Knox has shared her belief that Lucy Letby may be innocent, comparing the case to her own wrongful conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher. According to Daily Mail - News, Amanda Knox described how people reached out to her after Letby's conviction, saying they had not seen such vilification of a woman based on circumstantial evidence since Knox's own case. She said she was struck by how a young woman with no history of mental illness, violence, or apparent motive was suddenly accused of being a serial killer. Knox added that when she saw how Letby was being cast as evil by the British press, she felt that uncomfortable shock of recognition. The trial, conviction, and unprecedented sentencing ignited a national firestorm, but Knox said she knows personally how fragile certainty can be and how factors beyond evidence can distort thinking and incentivize people to look for scapegoats instead of truth.
Knox, a global campaigner for the wrongly convicted, was convicted of murder in 2007 before her conviction was overturned and she was released from prison in 2011; she and Raffaele Sollecito were exonerated by Italy's highest court in 2015. She has launched a podcast series titled 'Doubt: The Case of Lucy Letby', which she said she has been working on for two years. The podcast promises to delve into the evidence behind Letby's conviction, and Knox said it seeks to challenge what she describes as a settled narrative and examines if the case is truly as clear-cut as public consensus suggests.
I wasn't looking for the Lucy Letby case, it found me. People reached out to me after her conviction to say they had not seen the unprecedented vilification of a woman based on circumstantial evidence since my own case had hit the tabloids here in Great Britain.
Lucy Letby is serving 15 whole-life sentences for murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016. Evidence in her case included notes containing phrases such as 'I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them', 'I am a horrible evil person', 'help me', and 'I am evil I did this'; on one sheet, she wrote: 'I killed them. I don't know if I killed them. Maybe I did. Maybe this is down to me.' Her lawyers told jurors the notes were the 'anguished outpouring of a young woman' and that she was 'in fear and despair' at the time. Knox said being a mother herself and understanding that the parents of the victims want to know how and why their babies died deeply resonated with her, and she insisted she approached her investigation for the podcast with sensitivity for protecting the privacy and dignity of the families and victims. The podcast launch has provoked a backlash in the UK, with critics accusing Knox of exploiting another high-profile criminal case to make money. They argue that the podcast risks reopening wounds for families affected by Letby's crimes, and have pointed out that an American podcaster with no involvement in the trial should be recasting a case that has already been exhaustively examined by the courts.
That caught my attention, as someone who is very invested especially in the way that women are vilified through character assassination, through intense scrutiny of their behaviour.
I'm excited to share with you something I've been working on for two years now. Please check out my new podcast series, Doubt: The Case of Lucy Letby, from @iHeartRadio. It's available now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Doubt takes an unflinching look at a case that stunned the United Kingdom and the world: the conviction of neonatal nurse Lucy Letby for the murder of seven premature babies and the attempted murder of seven more.
When I saw how Letby was being cast as evil by the British press, I felt that uncomfortable shock of recognition.
The trial, conviction, and unprecedented sentencing ignited a national firestorm.
But I know personally how fragile that kind of certainty can be. And how factors beyond the evidence can distort our thinking and incentivise people to look for scapegoats instead of the truth.
Doubt examines a difficult and essential question: is this case truly as clear-cut as public consensus suggests? Or are there unresolved issues that merit deeper examination?