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.

Hold on, so the 14 only had access to the defence's medical evidence, and not to the prosecution's?

Exactly. To get Lucy Letby off. I hope that never happens. She's guilty as found by a jury.

It's usually used to cover client privilege too, @ThisFluentBiscuit , but as I said, McDonald used it to explain that he couldn't go around sending the final report to Evans or the hospital consultants etc - it will belong to Letby. The prosecution will get copies of course.

Yes I do wonder whether there will be a retrial. Unless the panel have got things far more wrong than I think is likely, it's hard to imagine that case the prosecution will put up.

No - the prosecution are obliged to give the defence copies of everything. It's a legal obligation. The defence and prosecution have access to the same medical records.

In the same way, the prosecution will be entitled to copies of the experts reports .

If there were no murders, the reason for Letby's defence team not calling experts is not going to matter.

If it does matter, they can disclose, and there are plenty of possible explanations that will not do her case any harm.

It’s the same thing surely? The prosecution can’t withhold stuff from the defence.

@Oftenaddled interesting if the reasons really are so innocuous/undamaging that she has not yet chosen to waive privilege, even to her new defence team.

So it would be entirely pointless and counterproductive for Mcdonald not to have given the experts access to all the information as the prosecution will read their full report.

Mcdonald has an agenda. Getting Lucy acquitted. To do this he has to give all the available evidence to these experts. The fact that Lucy authorised this to be done (even though the results would be published either way) strongly suggests to me that she knows she is innocent.

I think it's unlikely there will be a retrial as it's unlikely any murders actually took place.

What would happen then? Would she literally just be released?

Why should she? She is not out there making public statements or even appearing in media interviews etc like some prisoners.

What are the possibilities? She can't have disclosed guilt, because if she had, Myers would not have been able to maintain her innocence in court, as he did. So there's no smoking gun here.

The most likely, unsensational explanations are all there in the original trial. Myers wanted to argue for no case to answer because the prosecution were putting up arguments without a supporting scientific framework. Putting an expert up undermined that (not inaccurate) argument. There are other possibilities too. But the one thing we know it isn't? That Letby disclosed that she was guilty.

Yes, but the review by the 14 wasn't a legal process, was it? It was undertaken outside the justice system, correct? So when the 14 were reviewing, there was no defence and prosecution, and so the process you describe above wouldn't apply, I think. Let me know if I'm wrong, though.

My take is that the 14 didn't have access to a lot of the evidence - the prosecution's, I think - and for this reason, Lucy's conviction will stand. I'll be happy to be wrong, though.

They had access to all the medical evidence. They found details that were overlooked by the prosecution expert witnesses and were not presented to the court. Edit: this has already been covered.

@Mirabai It's wild how a ten-month trial can come to such a different conclusion from the 14 if they were looking at the same thing. It's not as if the 14 merely said that she didn't kill them. They said there wasn't even a case to answer - i.e. that there were no murders at all.

I can't help thinking that there's something wrong somewhere. Either the players in the first trial were criminally negligent, or all of the jury were spectacularly thick, or the 14 have got it wrong. One group of these three has got it utterly wrong. The question is which one.

Yes, you are wrong. Prosecution and defence still exist after a trial.

McDonald is formally acting for Letby's defence. As such, he has access to all information and records used to convict her. That's how our legal system works. The police also have an obligation to inform the CPS of any significant new material, and they in turn have an obligation to disclose to the defence team.

Legally, McDonald could not have disclosed the medical notes to anyone except as experts acting formally in the case. He can't just hand out these children's medical records to anyone. Nobody can - they are rightly confidential. So the 14 experts have just as much access as any of the prosecution experts have had.

So you really have no reason to believe the 14 experts did not have access to full records. I hope that clears things up a bit.

I can understand why a lay jury would accept what they were told the research of the foremost world expert in air embolisms said. Don't think that makes them thick.

The most likely, unsensational explanations are all there in the original trial. Myers wanted to argue for no case to answer because the prosecution were putting up arguments without a supporting scientific framework. Putting an expert up undermined that (not inaccurate) argument. There are other possibilities too. But the one thing we know it isn't? That Letby disclosed that she was guilty.

@Oftenaddled If this is the explanation then wouldn't it actually support what is happening now with the new panel of experts? Wouldn't Ben Myers be advising her to let him talk to Mark Macdonald?

It's really very odd that her new defence team have not been able to speak to her previous one about what happened at her trials and appeals, how they strategised etc. (Although do we even know for sure that she has dispensed with her original team? It will be interesting to see who she chooses to represent her at any appeal/retrial - it certainly wouldn't be Mark Macdonald if I were her).

And yes, obviously we know that she can't have disclosed guilt to her original team, but it is really not unusual for a defence to be aware of evidence that strongly suggests guilt without any formal disclosure of it.

Yes there is lot wrong somewhere. My money is on the prosecution lead expert witness, Dewi Evans, having got it all very wrong.

After all, four independent reports on each child's death (two before the trial, two after) found natural causes for every one of them . Evans has not been able to stick to his conclusion since the trial. He has chopped and changed and explained that he can't explain his methods because "when you know you know".

It really is shocking that this has happened and I am not surprised you struggle to believe it. It's a really worrying case.

The reason I thought they didn't have access is because I read something about it, but unfortunately I can't find it again.

Thanks for clearing things up.

I look forward with bated breath to the CCRC's decision. If the 14 had direct access to all the evidence then surely they must be right and that there is no case to answer - i.e. no murders took place at all. If the CCRC agrees, does that pave the way for the case to be thrown out and for LL to be speedily released after said decision? That would be amazing.

Weird because you don't understand basic logic. There doesn't appear to be any actual evidence to prove she murdered anyone.

Don't you think you should care if someone has been wrongly convicted of a very serious crime?

Absolutely. I don't think the jury were to blame. They were misled.

*Yes there is lot wrong somewhere. My money is on the prosecution lead expert witness, Dewi Evans, having got it all very wrong.

After all, four independent reports on each child's death (two before the trial, two after) found natural causes for every one of them . Evans has not been able to stick to his conclusion since the trial. He has chopped and changed and explained that he can't explain his methods because "when you know you know".

It really is shocking that this has happened and I am not surprised you struggle to believe it. It's a really worrying case.*

What about all the other prosecution expert witnesses? Why do people make out that everything hangs on Dewi Evans?

Ben Myers and Mark McDonald don't need to talk to share the knowledge that the prosection expert witnesses were talking nonsense. They've both come to the same conclusion independently.

That's the basis of McDonald's unusual but legally valid request to reopen the request to appeal on the basis that Evans did not do his duty to the court.

It would not strengthen his case in any way to be able to add PS Lucy Letby agreed with Ben Myers about this two years ago.

Also - you need to listen carefully when lawyers speak. McDonald has never said that Letby hasn't discussed this with him, only that he himself is not going to comment on Myers and that he respects Myers as a KC. He also makes it a policy not to discuss Letby herself.

This area touches on an unfathomably large can of worms from a psychological perspective.

Until you have been in / up against the system, chances are you believe in its overall integrity, especially in such grave matters as accusations of harm against others. You will, even if you are aware of previous times when things have gone wrong, then been publicised, then apparently put right, be confident that as long as you tell the truth, co-operate and help build your own defence, things will come right. The alternative is too terrifying.

You are bombarded with instruction from your legal team. Don't do this, don't say that, we can't use this expert because the courts don't like them, even though their input might well be pertinent. Don't nitpick. If the opposing solicitor arrives for an early hearing of some kind, and gets your name, your child's sex and date if birth and their father's details completely wrong in front of a judge, it's just an administrative error - you're left reeling as you wonder if they can't get the very basic details right, what hope is there for the most important aspects of your situation.

Questioning experts who have formed a view of you from multiple multi- agency reports long before you meet them, bearing in mind some of these reports have also been compiled by people working solely from notes and have also never met you, is deemed arrogant in the extreme. You realise with a mounting sense of horror that in one respect this is deeply personal, but also impersonal in the sense you are now a cog in a machine that cannot be easily stopped.

Within that system many factors are at play. Genuine belief in some that based on the "evidence" against you, especially medical evidence which is above most people's paygrade to understand, you are a genuine risk / have done a terrible thing. If other aspects of the situation don't quite tally up, well, nothing can be perfect. You might be dealing with an expert who has built a career on a hypothesis that has some merit, but has become an immovable monolith over time in the courts, because every time a conviction or positive out come for the courts occurs, it cements the hypothesis further until it is regarded as absolute ttruth.Some within the system opposing you are crusaders working to uphold justice, and the safety of your alleged victims group. Their zeal can be frightening. More do the box ticking and shrug. The volume of work they have means they've seen it all before. The eye rolling and yawning is palpable as you ask to be heard, and often comes with thinly disguised contempt and disdain.

The longer it goes on, the deeper the psychological wound. You realise you're not special. You're in a meat grinder. Your supporters are guilty by association of your crimes by doubting you did them. They dwindle. It's too much. There may be real world ramifications for them, especially if they do work in the system.

It's easy to talk about fighting your own corner until you're there, suddenly in the centre of what appears to be a perfect storm, a passenger on a boat where dozens of captains are fighting to control the rudder and you're locked in irons in the hold.

Paranoia of the highest order can take hold. You may find yourself sitting in a bath at 2am to literally stave off the fear if spontaneous human combustion because your brain's reasoning has decided if this one impossible thing, being accused of something you didn't do, can happen, then so can any other impossible thing.

Observers can dismiss you as flawed due to your over reaction. But this is your life. Your family's life. Your future, forever framed by suspicions that will never fully go away, because they have been committed to record, and doubts will remain even if you are "cleared".

After such an experience, if you have balls of absolute steel, you might wish to campaign and support others going through the system. You might entertain grandiose ideas of infiltrating the system from the inside, or forming or joining an organisation that already exists. Then you might come across a situation where someone you truly believed was a victim like yourself ultimately confesses their guilt. And you realise how dangerous the game is. Your own new inherent bias against the system that has destroyed you might have allowed a guilty person to evade justice or remain a real risk to the vulnerable.

And suddenly there you are in no man's land, your balls of steel more like ball bearings rattling around in a rusty tin.

I imagine Lucy Letby has chosen survival by any means within the prison system. Play the game, adapt and survive and a tiny hope that a small part of her true self will remain. Whatever that may be.

Sorry for the long ramble. I have spent 30 years with stuff like this rattling around my brain, too paranoid to address it with professionals - because, strangely enough, I don't trust professionals..... and yes, I probably sound unhinged. That's what happens.

That's a good question, yes.

People assert that it all hangs on Evans because:

He was lead witness

The other witness did not compile their reports blind. They saw his first and conferred with him.

The prosecution said that the case would collapse if Evans's evidence was excluded.

I do think Bohin's contribution was appalling too. But I think the defence strategy of focusing on Evans in public statements is a sensible one. I'm sure the full panel report looks at the other witnesses' claims as well.