Lucy Letby thread

The investigations into her time at other hospitals didn't go anywhere. The case had to go to the correct CPS, which refused all charges on the basis that the evidence did not meet the threshold for criminal charges.

The only current cases are Letby's appeal, Thirlwall, and corporate manslaughter/neglience charges against the Trust and management.

https://www.cheshire.police.uk/news/cheshire/news/articles/2026/1/operation-hummingbird-investigation-update/

That investigation has concluded, they wanted to charge her with 2 more deaths and 7 more collapses but the CPS said the evidence did not meet the legal test

Of course they may reopen it if any significant developments occur but I would imagine that this is highly unlikely as they have already conducted a review of 4000 babies during the period from 2012-2016.

No, I'm happy to hear from people with different opinions if these are backed by facts. But the majority of posts from the pro- guilty are simply opinions, backed up by sneers and insults and implications that people who are concerned about aspects of the process here (which you repeatedly conflate that with belief in innocence ) don't care about the parents, are crass, or stupid, that they didn't follow the trial closely, or only care because LL is young and white. Those kind of posts don't advance the discussion - if pro-guilty people have actual facts, share them with an actual considered rationale. From what I have seen of you, however, it's not apparent that you are able to do this.

She's been found guilty by a jury. If there is doubt she'll appeal and maybe the conviction will be overturned. I think she's guilty and so did the jury.

I would love to know what the jury thinks now.

It would be interesting to know. My guess would be that most might still say guilty but it’s the few who might have changed their minds I’d be interested in hearing from. Although that is a complete guess. Would you want to feel responsible for sending an innocent person to jail? You’d sleep better at night if you believed you did the right thing.

If the babies died or collapsed through natural causes why on earth didn't the defence not call expert witnesses to say this?

The most likely explanation I've seen is that they couldn't explain the two insulin test results (as discussed here in Private Eye: https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-28.pdf) . Putting their expert witness on the stand would have exposed this fact. So arguing for a "no case to answer" as Myers did, especially since he was correct in his assertion that the prosecution wasn't relying on settled science, was a rational decision with their state of knowledge then.

But science moves on, and we now have explanations for the insulin tests which show that the values weren't impossible without poisoning, as the prosecution claimed. It's even been shown that the prosecution was aware of this. So the judge's advice to the jury, that insulin had certainly been administered, is now shown to have rested on a false foundation. This should certainly be of interest to the Court of Appeal.

There was a really interesting link in one of these threads about how the barrister might approach a case like this - it was from a publication for lawyers, will see if I can find it, or perhaps the person who posted it in the first place will see this and repost.

I think the defense should have called the doctors who originally received the insulin test results to explain why they didn't investigate further. They'd have said (as I think they did later at Thirlwall?) that odd/unexplained test results are not uncommon, especially in neonates. That basic background is still true, and is the right baseline against which the findings should be judged. Of the odd/unexplained test results that do happen, the vast majority don't reflect purposed harm, so finding some in a large trawl is not strong proof of attempted murder.

I think the sheer momentum of it all and the timing had an huge impact

The New Yorker came out before the baby K re-trial and the Guardian had articles expressing doubt only a week after the re-trial. This article sounded to me like it had been ready to go and in the works for a while, but they just couldn't print it because of the reporting restrictions until after the re-trial was over.
Initially most of the experts remained anonymous but then it did not take long for more and more to start putting their names to it publicly.

That kind of momentum is so unusual, so shortly after a conviction.

I don't think I've said any of those things? Not in this thread anyway, I don't remember doing that.

I don't mind admitting most of the posters here are far more educated and intellectual than me. What I've repeatedly said is I think they have a bias or a blind spot when it comes to this case which I stand by. And following the case at the time really does lay it all out because you follow the case of each baby one by one.

What are facts anyway? I thought the insulin tests were poisoning-fact. But apparently not! So many facts from the trial have since changed-not in any real tangible way but people have said them enough times they've now become fact. That's not right.

Exactly-that decision only makes sense if she's guilty. I mean say she had Mike Hall willing to counter absolutely everything, the fact she didn't call him speaks volumes as to her guilt. She couldn't risk having him be cross-examined because she knows very well these weren't natural causes.

Imagine being innocent and just thinking "meh I won't bother having any medical defence experts"!!! You'd be absolutely desperate to call them all if you were really innocent. You'd be begging them to take the stand. I mean the plumber was clearly desperation, but he wasn't a medical expert so he was the only one they could risk calling. It's really an open and shut case but people insist on way overcomplicating it in an effort to have her not be guilty.

It's not just "people saying it" these things have been investigated by experts and professionals and there is now proof that the original "facts" (such as the insulin readings being poisoning) aren't correct.

Because they were up against incorrect "facts" that no expert witness would have gone against. There is now experts who are speaking out about it and it has come to light that the facts weren't actually facts at all. It's not as simple as you're saying.

You definitely have said similar on this thread, you just don't seem to be aware of half of the things you say.

Yes we know you think that but must you state it repeatedly over and over and make every single thread about yourself as per usual, what you think is not fact, there's no reason why following the case as it happened, baby by baby would lead to a less biased opinion, especially when we know the narrative that they were telling.

An 'agreed fact' in a courtroom is something both sides agree to be true, and that they're not intending to argue about, it doesn't mean that it's actually true or objectively a fact.

The defence doesn’t have to prove innocence. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt. The defence may have assumed that original causes of death would be enough to provide reasonable doubt.

I do have a question for you. If the defence had produced the 12 experts who wrote the recent report as witnesses, do you think she would have been found guilty?

One of the experts who made a complete prat of himself on Panorama.

They asked another insulin expert on that programme and he agreed with the court expert.

Do you really think in a case this big that made worldwide headlines that experts wouldn't come out the woodwork with alternative theories? Doesn't make them credible. We had top UK experts testifying but suddenly they don't know how to do their job?

you've said all of those things, many to me, although not all on this particular thread. I suppose it's credible that you don't remember every post, as you are so prolific. But not being as educated as others has not stopped you from stating your opinions as if they were facts and disparaging anyone who doesn't agree.

Re: fact Vs opinion. Do you understand the difference? The facts here are that babies tragically died. It's an opinion that they were murdered. Too many of the so called facts of this case were opinions which do not stand up to scrutiny. The insulin "poisoning" being one of those.

And while that poster is right that repetition makes things more believable and more likely to be perceived as fact, it's ironic that this is exactly what they have done on every thread they've posted on about LL when they trot out the same few opinions- she's guilty, she's a baby killer, the international experts don't know better than a country doctor who is not a neonatologist (that still blows my mind). It is hard to believe someone can be so unaware of what they are doing as this.

Edited due to a typo.

The insulin stuff is complicated, and I usually have to read a paper 10,000 times before I understand it, and then I forget the technical terms within minutes.

In very simple terms, when insulin is produced naturally by a healthy adult, C-peptides are produced at the same rate; the insulin and C-peptides are then cleared at a similar rate by the liver and kidneys. Because of this steady ratio of C-peptide to natural insulin, we use C-peptide measurements to assess the rate at which diabetics naturally produce insulin, since synthetic insulin doesn't produce the same C-peptide levels - it allows Drs to differentiate between synthetic and naturally occurring insulin.

In none diabetics who have not been given synthetic insulin, you would expect the C-peptides and insulin levels to be roughly the same. This has never been tested as thoroughly in newborns, especially in neonates, because they just don't have enough blood, so Drs have always just calculated down from the adult ratios to work out babies' and neonates' C/I ratios, which is what happened in the Letby case and how they came to the conclusion that synthetic insulin had been given.

However, newish research by Chase and Shannon shows that neonates have a similar antibody to diabetics that can bind and store insulin, which skews the C/I ratio.

The papers are all paid for, and I am not sure my nurse sister would be impressed with me giving out her log-on details so you can all read them, but this Reddit thread discusses the paper Chase and Shannon wrote for Letby's appeal and papers they referenced in their own.

www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1sy75b6/geoff_chase_helen_shannon_study_now_published/

The defence doesn’t have to prove innocence. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt. The defence may have assumed that original causes of death would be enough to provide reasonable doubt.

Well that didn't work out too well for her did it. I don't see an innocent person simply not bothering but then she does come across as arrogant and narcissistic so maybe she's innocent and just expected to get off as she's always got what she wanted. Daddy usually fixed things for her.

I do have a question for you. If the defence had produced the 12 experts who wrote the recent report as witnesses, do you think she would have been found guilty?

How could I possibly say? I have no idea how they'd perform on the stand or how convincing they'd be (importantly) under cross-examination. I did start to worry last night after reading up about Kathleen Folbigg etc. that she could end up getting off at some point on a technicality. There are always experts who can come up with crazy theories to cause reasonable doubt. That pilot in Shoreham got off by blaming his negligence on g-forces. It's very hard to argue against medical things.

I guess the lesson is, if you want to get away with being a killer-go into healthcare or have a medical episode. That land rover driver will probably get off too.

I don't think you understand how medical research works. The papers written are not "crazy theories"; they are studies to prove the initial theory.

Chase has been studying this for years, long before he ever heard of Letby, because he is trying to come up with a more reliable test to measure insulin in neonates, and he has the C/I results of hundreds of babies as part of his research. Unless you believe all the babies Chase has collected results from over his decade-long study were poisoned, then you cannot argue that it is a crazy theory.

The prosecution, otoh, does have several theories but no studies proving them.

People far smarter than me testified those babies were deliberately harmed.

Re: fact Vs opinion. Do you understand the difference?

Do you? A couple people (not even endocrinologists) come up with some new theories to explain the wildly outside the norm test results-that has never been seen before in babies, that they've not even been cross-examined on, and you actually buy their theories? The "science" wasn't there a mere 3 years ago, really? Well I guess that's a free pass for any nurse who wants to use that method to kill babies isn't it. Thanks Geoff.

And all the new defence experts had full access to the babies’ medical records. Dr Shoo Lee said the unit would have been shut down if it were in Canada.

Their conclusions have been published in full so that others in academia, as well as the general public can see for themselves. Whereas the prosecution has ditched its expert statistician, and Dewi Evans has rowed back on his theories. Note that Evans is a retired paediatrician, not a neonatologist - I promise you that the disciplines are different. He is no exporter on pre-term babies.

Do you believe that Sally Clark was wrongly convicted? Because there is more evidence to exonerate Letby than there was to exonerate Clark.