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.

Yes I've read those.

The thing about her being friends with Beinash Batool. I think you have to remember that for one, prison is pretty limited on who you can socialise with. And although apparently many of the other inmates believe LL "now" that's only been since the press conference. The same articles say they were "very nasty" to her initially. So when Batool was imprisoned, LL would still have been an outcast too. Plus all of this info comes from other prisoners so who knows.

Fgs. No. There is actual evidence in that case.

People have been pretty clear in this thread that a cluster of systemic problems and issues that are/were evident in many UK NICUs, during a period marked by a rash of neonatal and maternity scandals, is the alternative, not an organised conspiracy. I see people saying that those who have doubts are “conspiracy theorists” but I only ever see the pro guilty crowd presenting the supposed conspiracy argument, always a weak one, as you’ve done here, rather than engage with the actual arguments we make. Here’s my position:

1. Serial murderers are extremely rare. Especially female ones.
2. Clusterfucks of systemic issues, scandals, and arse covering are known issues in the NHS.

I go for 2.

Also, you’re forgetting that the ‘guilty’ argument actually DOES need a conspiracy theory to work and it is an unbelievably weak argument that actually IS often made. The argument (which is commonly shared and included in pro guilty articles etc) is that the drs knew for a year that she was killing babies, but did nothing report to the coroner, police, Chester child death overview panel, etc instead emailing management over and over for a year. Why? Apparently, and this is often made explicit, we are meant to believe that management conspired to tolerate, and not interfere with, a serial killer rather than besmirch the good name of the COCH.

That’s not just a conspiracy theory, it’s also every kind of crackers. It’s totally illogical. But they need it. Because the guilty position falls apart without the hero doctors at the helm.

One retired colleague is very much supporting her and attended the trial every day.

At least she may be having an easier time of things in prison.

I remember not being convinced of her guilt at the time, until the defence was so weak and I assumed that was all they had. It still felt off and I remember feeling quite ill at the thought she might be innocent. I still do.

Yes you do have to take it with a pinch of salt I guess. But it just seems weird to me that if she was innocent she would be friends with that woman. But I do think an appeal is needed with this ‘new’ evidence.

Assuming its true (and could be a load of crap) she has probably convinced Lucy she is innocent.

Real killers are often charming and manipulative and how many social workers and judges did Sara's stepmother and father manage to convince?

I also imagine it wouldn't be hard to get Lucy to believe that courts could fabricate evidence and wrongfully convict at this point.

(Just to be clear I am not in agreement. The evidence in the case of Sara seemed very clear)

Agree. If a hypothetical person, LL or someone else, has been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, it's easy to see how they might end up believing anyone's claims of innocence.

Would you care to link to these for some balance on this thread? I’d be interested to have anything factual to gain an understanding of why she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt

I find it very, very hard to believe that such an incredibly long and immensely thorough trial, litigated by KCs, would have got it wrong. They were so careful and left no stone unturned, which is why it took so long.

However, all things are possible, in theory, and it will be interesting to see what the CCRC has to say.

I WANT it to be a miscarriage of justice, I really do, because that would make so much more sense than this ordinary young woman being a monstrous baby-killer. I don't want it to be true that this sweet-faced young nurse could have done these things. If she was exonerated, I would feel a great relief. Her whole life was ordinary and relatable, from her home decor and her pets and her relationship with her parents, her friends, her hobbies....she seemed like the kind of person I could have been friends with - in fact, she's very much like an actual nurse friend of mine. That she could be an evil monstrous baby-killer is beyond horrifying, and I would be highly relieved if she was innocent.

Sadly, I believe she's guilty. The 14 experts didn't have direct access to the medical evidence, and I think the CCRC review will mention this.

But we'll see. It's interesting, for sure.

I don't want to derail the thread but it does seem that Sara was murdered by her father. I am not sure why the stepmother was convicted of murder rather than the offence of causing or allowing the death of a child as the uncle was? Does anyone know?

I guess I have filed it in the bucket of things I don't care about (though perhaps I should) as the stepmother should have gone to the police and she seemed to collude with her husband and cover up for him.

I think the experts did have access as they were given it by the defence who in the interests of fairness have all the prosecution evidence disclosed to them.

The 14 experts did have direct access to the medical evidence. The prosecution is obliged by law to give the defence access to all of the materials they have used.

So if the 14 experts didn't have this access, the police and crown prosecution are in serious trouble and the first case will be declared a mistrial

I would be interested to know why you think they didn't have it - is somebody claiming that? That would be a huge bonus for Letby's defence.

They actually had a bit more evidence than the prosecution witnesses had when they wrote their reports because they also had records of anything mention at trial, and they had all the prosecutions arguments to check.

This was a trial about 24 different events, so it's no surprise it was long. It wasn't meticulous. The prosecution was still chopping and changing which events they charged her with and which were unsuspicious even after it started.

A long trial doesn't mean a more convincing argument. If they had had bulletproof evidence on the events, they could have presented it much faster.

A long trial does make it harder for the jury to follow. Letby's defence asked if they could take the cases one by one so the jury could hear both sides of the argument together. The judge didn't allow this.

KCs unfortunately don't necessarily approach their work as a search for truth but as an attempt to win.

The 14 experts aren't a defence. This review wasn't part of a legal process, so there's no prosecution and defence.

I read something that said Lucy hasn't waived something that she needs to waive to release all the evidence, so the evidence that was presented in court wasn't available to the 14 experts, and their info. was second-hand. It might have been on here or possibly Reddit. I wish I could locate it.

P.S. She hasn't waived her legal privilege.

The review was undertaken outside the legal system, so there's no prosecution and defence.

The 14 experts were working with the defence, so they will have had access to everything the defence has. They have all agreed to act as expert witness if the case comes back to court.

Nobody has had any information about Letby's legal decisions since the first trial. I'm afraid that source on reddit or mumsnet was probably inventing things.

Those 14 experts have day jobs in which they can earn a lot of money. They have global reputations. If McDonald had gone back and said Lucy says yes, but you can't have full notes, they would have had nothing more to do with the case.

The review used the disclosed proscecution evidence from the trial which was given to them by Lucy Letby's legal team.

The review was undertaken after seeking permission from McDonald and Letby, which is what was necessary to obtain the relevant documents. So the defence - McDonald - had to have legitimate grounds to disclose the medical records, and clearly satisfied the requirement. Otherwise the experts would have had no medical records at all.

Your source on this has got things wrong.

Waiving legal privilege means a whole host of things, @ThisFluentBiscuit . It doesn't mean the experts didn't have access to medical notes.

McDonald referred to the fact that Letby had legal privilege to share the final report outside the CCRC and that he expected she would be willing to share with the children's parents if they wanted that.

Letby has also (as is usual) maintained the legal privilege of keeping legal communications between herself and her legal team confidential.

If your source thinks that not waiving legal privilege means not giving the experts working with your defence team access to evidence they really don't know what they are talking about. There is a lot of nonsense on reddit (and even a bit on mumsnet!)

The panel of experts will have been entirely reliant on whatever evidence Mark Macdonald has decided to provide them with. We definitely do not know for sure (yet) that they have seen absolutely everything that might be relevant in forming their opinions. And worth remembering that Mark Macdonald has a pretty clear agenda here.

Naturally. Just as the prosecution expert witnesses were entirely reliant on what the police gave them.

McDonald has an aim, which is to work toward Letby's exoneration.

You are trying to stir up doubt, but what you are saying could be said about every legal case ever in the UK.

McDonald would need a lot of medical expertise to remove information which:

wouldn't leave an obvious gap
wouldn't prevent a new diagnosis
wouldn't be revealed when cross referenced with prosecution support

And what for? To have the case fail at the CRCC?

This is just a fantasy and it quite a silly one.

Regardless, it will be very interesting to see what happens next. I dearly hope she is innocent. If the CCRC decides on an appeal, that would be huge. As for a retrial, I don't see how she could possibly have a fair trial after all the publicity around her case.

Re. your third para, isn't that client privilege? I read that legal privilege is specifically the release of all the evidence.

I heard an interesting interview with Tim Owen KC from the Double Jeopardy podcast (which I thoroughly recommend). In relation to legal privilege on her original defence strategy he was saying that whilst the CoA can't force LL to waive her privilege, it can draw inferences from a refusal to do so that it would reveal information that undermines her case. So it seems like we are either going to find out why the defence didn't put forward any expert witnesses originally, or any future appeal may not get very far.