Lucy Letby: a condensed update on recent developments

[Kittybythelighthouse]

So, in the past week or so alone we’ve had:

Leading neonatology expert Dr Shoo Lee (Professor Emeritus at University of Toronto, Honorary Physician at Mount Sinai Hospital, President of the Neonatal Foundation, Founder of Canadian Neonatal Network, Previously Head of Neonatology at University of Toronto and a hospital for sick children) says his 1989 paper, which the prosecution relied on as their only proof of alleged intravenous air embolism (skin discolouration) was misused by the prosecution. He actually went to the appeal hearing and had his paper Judge-splained to him by three CoA judges who probably don’t even have a science A level (the judiciary have a poor record regarding science). He was so astonished and aggrieved that he has has published a new peer reviewed paper filling in all new evidence since 1989 and distinguishing between intravenous and arterial air embolism which the 1989 paper didn’t do. The conclusion: there is zero evidence for skin discolouration in intravenous air embolism, which is the only possibility in this case. This means there is absolutely no evidence to support an allegation of air embolism. It didn’t happen.

https://t.co/TRokh1hneu

Dr Shoo Lee pulled together a blue ribbon panel of the world’s best experts in relevant areas. Never before in legal history has a group of such highly regarded international experts come together to challenge the evidence against a convicted serial killer. They went through all of the evidence independently and pro bono (with the proviso that they would publish reports regardless of findings). Yesterday they held a press conference. Conclusion: there were no murders. There was plenty of poor care, medical malpractice, mistakes, and a poorly run struggling hospital.

“If this was a hospital in Canada, it would be shut down”

Link to their summary report: drive.google.com/file/d/1aV4zwwdBYw8Z_E-Tpe9_-iPR7n8cZdFk/view

A leak from an Operation Hummingbird detective which reveals that deaths were chosen as suspicious or not based on whether Letby was on shift (remember, most of the babies had uncontroversial post mortems at the time). There were ten other cases originally classed as suspicious until it was established Letby couldn’t have done them, then they magically became unsuspicious.

“Four more children would later be added, two children would be dropped, collapses deleted and added as the focus was turned in different directions, and the whole chart thoroughly chopped and changed. The guiding principle being, always, that Letby must be in the frame.” Trials of Lucy Letby on X.

https://t.co/FOO55lWlCi

Chester Police responded with a statement to The Mail on Sunday:

“There is a significant public interest in these matters, however, every story that is published, statement made, or comment posted online that refers to the specific details of a live investigation can impede the course of justice and cause further distress to the families concerned. It is these families and the ongoing investigations that remain our primary focus.”

“Cheshire Constabulary's statement to the Mail on Sunday is remarkable, coming from a police force that put out an HOUR-LONG promotional video about their own investigation.

They claim to be demurring from commenting now because "every story that is published, statement made, or comment posted online that refers to the specific details of a live investigation can impede the course of justice and cause further distress to the families concerned."

Such concerns did not stop them, less than two years ago, from flooding the press with incendiary and prejudicial commentary, going so far as to announce that they'd be reviewing the care of 4,000 babies that Letby may have ever come into contact with.

The lead investigator, Paul Hughes, even sat down with the co-hosts of the Daily Mail podcast for an episode called "Catching the Killer Nurse," where he speculated to no end about the supposedly evil and cunning machinations behind Letby's every move, and concluded that "she clearly does love the attention. I think she's loved the attention of a trial." (From The Trials of Lucy Letby on X).

Is Letby the one who loved the attention? The investigation was as active then as it is today. Why the silence now? 🤔

Thirlwall released the witness statement of Michelle Turner on behalf of Liverpool Women’s Hospital. She speaks about Letby's placement in 2012 & 2015, including how unlikely she would have been in an intensive care room without another nurse present.

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/upl…

Former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord MacDonald to BBC’s World at One: “It is clear that there is now this quite impressive body of work. Something may have gone wrong here. That clearly has to be taken seriously.”

"New documents released by the Thirlwall Inquiry also show how the Countess of Chester refused to take part in research to improve outcomes for premature babies."

Neena Modi: "The Countess of Chester was the only hospital to decline participation."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/04/the-10-baby-deaths-that-cast-doubt-on-lucy-letbys-guilt/

Meanwhile the CPS still (as far as we know) refuse to hand over former Dr Dewi Evans new report about how one of the babies died - written in October 2024 after BBC’s File on Four challenged him about Letby not having been on shift when an ‘incriminating’ x ray was taken. In fact she hadn’t been on shift since the baby was born. She was convicted of killing this baby.

The CCRC announced yesterday that they have opened their investigation of the case. They assembled a team specifically for this case late last year, in anticipation of an application. This is an extraordinarily speedy and organised response from the CCRC.

https://ccrc.gov.uk/news/lucy-letby-application-received-by-criminal-cases-review-commission/

This has been a remarkable, historic, run of events. It is now looking very likely that the case will go back to the Court of Appeal, or there may be a more expedient solution. Whatever happens, it’s very unlikely to take the CCRC their usual 10 years to deal with it. They are on the ropes recently, with a CEO stepping down and a raft of bad press. I am not Mystic Meg, but my money is on an exoneration within the year.

If this turns out to be a nurse who was fitted up to cover for hospital inadequacies (and maybe a side order of a person having an affair complicating matters), there will still be a hell of a lot of 'don't care, she just got away with it' comments.

My own child died in nicu, in part due to poor communication, so I do understand the pain the families are going through. I didn’t follow the trial, and I don’t understand much of the science.
But I think we should explore every avenue, as and when new information comes out, because if we shut the door on it we might miss something that can save lives in the future.

Undoubtedly, but the number of those taking a hardline guilty position is shrinking by the day.

None of these so called experts worked with Lucy Letby or attended the trial.

And?

@BartholomewsCat I'm so sorry for your loss

Your post is entirely sensible - the aim here should be to save lives in the future

'So called' 😂

Can you read? Read their proffesions, qualifications and list of published research. You'll be there quite a while.

As it appears to be becoming apparent that much of the medical 'evidence' was manipulated, misrepresented and sometimes flat-out invented, not being a part of the original trial seems like a GOOD thing in being able to remain impartial.

Also agree with op. She'll be out by Christmas, probably with a substantial undisclosed financial settlement to come.

On what basis do you call them ‘so called experts’? They are legitimately the world leaders in this field. That is not in contention. Dewi Evans and Co are a five a side pub team vs premier league in comparison.

They had access to all of the evidence. That’s how it works.

I have no idea if she did it or not. I listened to The Trail of Lucy Letby podcast which was released daily during the trail and discussed only what was heard in court each day. I was left uncertain. She may have done it, but that’s not how our justice system works.

If you’re going to convict someone of being the worst child murderer this country has seen, you better damn well be certain.

The poor families of the babies.

"Theremedy"

If you’re going to convict someone of being the worst child murderer this country has seen, you better damn well be certain

This.

One of the key features to me was that there were only two ward rounds a week. My first job was on a unit where there 3 ward rounds in 24 hours so that the consultant had reviewed every patient every 8 hours. I then moved to a unit where patients were reviewed twice a day, this provoked real concerns for me as I felt the patients needed senior review more frequently. I do believe this will have led to failures of care. Whilst more junior doctors do a fantastic job it does sometimes need experience to notice declining patients or unusual symptoms.
Whether or not she is guilty it all points to poor management and care.

What, like Dewi Evans? He's not even a neonatologist!

No but one of them literally wrote the published paper that they misused in the trial.

I think he knows what he was researching and writing better than them. That's how this whole thing started, he found out that they'd used his research to prosecute her, and he was bothered that they misunderstood it to such an extent that it actually isn't evidence at all.

I have no idea if she's innocent or guilty, but I'm definitely in the 'not guilty beyond all reasonable' camp.

Whatever the outcome, it's unfortunately not going to save lives in the future. The nhs is a toxic, failing organisation which is overly protected because it's the UK national religion. It also protects incompetent and arrogant people and covers up wrongdoing (see multiple scandals). As the collapse continues, it's only going to get worse. If I was a hcp working in such an organisation, I'd be very worried about my position apart from the doctors of course, who cover each other's arses and always have.

Well done to the specialists overseas who have spoken out. Some professionalism at last. I don't have words bad enough for Dewi Evans and his sidekicks.

Crikey - you're very invested aren't you? What are you hoping to achieve?

The case is with the CCRC for review. It'll likely be thrown out when they weigh up the supposed 'new' evidence against what was already heard in the 10 month trial. If it isn't - it'll be considered for appeal. Until then - what are you trying to achieve? Campaigning on behalf of a baby murderer is a weird hobby.

Nobody who worked with Lucy Letby should have been involved in the investigation in any capacity except as a witness. That was a grave mistake in the handling of this case

That's a brilliant post. Thank you.

Perhaps they should have- the outcome may well have been very different.

This

All the clamouring to defend a baby murderer is weird to me.

So why didn’t her defence KC call them then, if they had so much to add?

This! They are hellbent on clutching straws!

But what if it turns out she isn’t a baby murderer? It wouldn’t be the first time someone has been wrongly convicted of a serious crime. Is this really so difficult to understand?

All the clamouring to defend a baby murderer is weird to me.

I don't see it as that. I see it as people clamouring to defend the legal system and clamouring to defend someone they believe isn't guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And, most important of all, clamouring to defend future children from whatever killed these poor babies if she didn't.

It's pretty obvious that everyone talking about this doesn't think she did it. So they aren't defending a baby murderer.

Female serial killers are very very rare. Ones that do it without any indication of deep trauma are even more rare. Circumstantial evidence, however convincing, should not be used to convict. Anyone with a passing acquintence with statistics and chance knows why. Weird coincidences that look like meaning happen every day. They are extremely common.

For example, someone I know works in emergency management. With embassies and high level government organisations. She has repeatedly, over and over, been assigned somewhere just before an incident. She has never had a placement where something hasn't happened. She's known in the field, "don't send Jenny, there will be a disaster". And there is one. If they were terrorist attacks, I'm pretty sure they would have investigated her. But they are tsunami, hurricanes, floods. Nothing to do with her. Don't trust coincidence. It's very flawed.

This is why I really think the jury system is flawed. Nobody is ‘clamouring to defend a baby murderer’. The people determined to not look again are the ones who would seemingly prefer to live with a possibly incorrect verdict and heads in the sand about what went wrong that could be prevented in future.

That kind of emotionally driven thinking is what leads to flawed investigations, trials and verdicts.

@ThatsNotMyTeen yes it would be very strange for such renowned experts to put their professional reputations on the line to exonerate a baby killer wouldn't it...
Can you not imagine that all the "clamouring" is for a reason and that there is an extremely high chance she is innocent?