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.

There's a very strong and clear reason why she's not guilty and it has nothing to do with this panel. If anything the panel was established for this reason. The second the body cam footage of her arrest was released I immediately said - not only is she going to be found innocent, she will also be found to be a victim.
It really must be nice.

I am so sorry.

There are so many stories like yours and mine yet they get dismissed so readily and it's inhumane in the extreme.

Sending love and solidarity x

Has anyone listed to the DM podcast episode which covered Dr Lees press conference?

I enjoyed that podcast as a way to stay abreast of the trial and subsequent updates, but always found Caroline and Liz to be so obviously bias that LL is guilty and that the original trial is beyond any possible reproach, I haven't found them very neutral.

Not listened to the DM podcast but read yesterday that it was one of the many media sources quoted as being hostile to LL in her failed appeal wrt re-trial of Baby K murder case- likely to influence the outcome of the trial in a negative way

They will come to regret eschewing journalistic neutrality as will Judith Moritz.
Or at least - if you’re going to be a campaigning journalist make sure you understand the data and you’re on the right side like Sarah Knapton, Rachel Aviv, Phil Hammond or John Sweeney.

They talked to Ken McDonald and kept repeating that the press conference was “full of technical information” in a way that indicated they struggled to understand the scientific data.

I actually thought the press conference was relatively straightforward to understand in terms of the "technical information", and surely journalists can do what the rest of us do these days and pop onto Google.

I really dislike the message that comes from people in media and other areas that suggests we're all a bit thick, bless, and might get dangerous ideas in our heads because we can't possibly understand these things....

Yes, highly unlikely for those doctors to spend months looking at this without very good reason. The CCRC have been working on it and have had a team in place for the last few months in preparation for this.
As for that Snowdon character another gem was "they (panel of world renowned doctors) could have done this for fear of the fresh claims being made against her"
They walk among us.

As I see it the options are either:

• shes guilty
• theres been a massive organised cover up/incompetence by everyone including the hospital doctors, managers (who were actually sympathetic towards her when the original complaints were made), the police, the CPS, all of the Crown witnesses, her defence team, and the judiciary at 2 trials and 2 appeals so far.

given the lack of joined up-ness in our public services, 2 doesn’t seem that probable to me.

it also wouldn’t explain why?! There have been many many cases of systemic NHS failures leading to multiple deaths of patients. Why in this one out of all of them would there be a desire to frame someone as a murderer?

As I see it the options are either:

• shes guilty
• theres been a massive organised cover up/incompetence by everyone including the hospital doctors, managers (who were actually sympathetic towards her when the original complaints were made), the police, the CPS, all of the Crown witnesses, her defence team, and the judiciary at 2 trials and 2 appeals so far.

given the lack of joined up-ness in our public services, 2 doesn’t seem that probable to me.

it also wouldn’t explain why?! There have been many many cases of systemic NHS failures leading to multiple deaths of patients. Why in this one out of all of them would there be a desire to frame someone as a murderer?

Yes doctor Lee was very clear worth his communication was he. I was absolutely astounded at what I heard. I think even the journalists present were shocked and didn't expect it to be so definitive.

I also can't understand why it's taking so long to reveal cogent information about other potential cases. Claims of thousands of babies who may have been harmed by her over 8 years ago, but where no suspicions were raised at the time? It's seemed sensationalist from the start.

Guess it's because there are no other cases but since she's been convicted of murder they have to check over other babies that were in her care.
@ThatsNotMyTeen or there were no murders and medical evidence has been misrepresented and misunderstood and doctors made mistakes that they didn't even know were mistakes. Under staffed and badly trained over worked staff and a unit that wasn't coping. The rest of the case is circumstantial and has been made to fit Letby being guilty.

@ThatsNotMyTeen Why, I have no idea but I hope we find out in a timely fashion.

IDK apparently Cheshire police have 24-25 new cases to bring against LL

Dewi Evans has recently retired [??somewhat unexpectedly] so maybe the next steps in bringing forward the new cases aren't so clear any more

Also involvement of CCRC???

@Efacsen have they really. It actually is disgustingly shocking what has happened to this woman.

Yes, but these kind of failings in the NHS aren’t new. None of the other examples have ended up in murder charges or convictions

So why this one?

That is a lot of cases. I couldn't believe it when I read Shipman could have murdered over 300 people and got away with it for a long time. . Because folk have trust in medical people. They don't suspect them of being serial killers.

Do you people think Harold Shipman was innocent as well?

Yes it's in one of MD's recent 'episodes'

And if she didn't do it, this must be so traumatic not just for the parents of DC LL has been convicted of murdering but for all the parents that are now having to go through their DCs deaths being investigated.

I think it was actually going down the usual route of a failing unit and had got quite a long way down that road with investigations of the unit starting etc.

What do I think happened that was different in this case from others? Two major factors.

1. A couple of the consultants were not capable of admitting their practice and mismanagement of the unit had been at fault and latched on to the idea that Lucy was at fault. They then persuaded the managers to go to the police.
2. A very unscrupulous expert witness got wind of the police investigation, got himself hired and started inventing possible non natural causes for the babies deaths.

I think in the second factor hadn't occured and a sensible specialist had reviewed the deaths independently then the police investigation would have been closed.

If there are 24 / 25 potential cases, it really does beg the question why nobody looked into them at the time? If there were no significant concerns then, I'm not sure that seeing that Lucy Letby was on shift / in the building / whatever should be enough, unless they are simply using the metric if "baby collapsed" or God forbid "baby died".

Also, if these alleged cases occurred during her training, shouldn't quality if supervision be the first area of concern?

Once the police had concluded that the evidence of the expert witness meant that murders had occured then the thing took on a momentum of its own. At every step the number of people who would have to make themselves look stupid by admitting something was wrong increased.

It's a good question - perhaps in this case the pressure from the consultant body to whistleblow/ report to the police and their conviction that LL was a 'baby-killer have lead to a different outcome

Also Dewi Evan's role?

I know that in some of the other maternity scandals the pressure to investigate came from from the families rather than clinicians - particularly widowers who had lost their baby's mother or both their wife and baby

I don’t. I don’t think Fred West was innocent either. What’s your point? I don’t really have an opinion on whether Lucy Letby is innocent. I do think, however, that serious questions have been raised about the evidence that was used to convict her.