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.

Her colleagues weren’t allowed to be character witnesses! They were told by the trust that if they did they’d lose their jobs.

The 14 experts had access to literally everything the prosecution had. The idea that they didn’t constantly gets repeated, but it isn’t true. Many people don’t realise that the autopsies/post mortems all returned natural causes.The investigation didn’t start for a year or more after the babies died. There was none of this suspicion before then.

The prosecution witnesses, including their pathologist, never saw the babies bodies. They overrode the opinions of the original neonatal pathologists (who were not called to the trial or to Thirlwall) based on the contemporary notes. They didn’t have access to a shred of evidence that the defence haven’t had access to.

Long trials are often seen in miscarriages of justice. A long trial doesn’t indicate better/more evidence or better/more careful arguments. A long trial is more likely to have tenuous convoluted arguments. Short trials are more a feature of slam dunk cases than long trials.

The defence gave them everything. They have the discretion to do so. They do not need privilege to be waived in order to do so. After the appeal hearing that Dr Lee attended he asked the defence for the medical evidence, with the proviso that he would publish regardless of whether or not the findings would help her case. They agreed.

The 14 experts did their reports independently but they did them using all of the evidence. The question of waiving privilege was raised by a legal commentator (I believe it was Joshua Rozenberg) in regards to whether it will ever be known why the defence didn’t call experts in the first trial. This isn’t required, certainly not in order for the defence to allow anyone it likes to access the evidence. The question was whether or not the appeal court would make a negative inference if they don’t do this once it gets to that point.

No. They had access to literally everything. The defence always have everything (as a matter of course) and they gave it all to the 14 experts.

What makes you say she her new team don’t know all about this? They almost certainly do. You don’t need to waive client privilege in order for your new defence to have complete knowledge of everything.

@Kittybythelighthouse I've read a bit more this weekend and am stunned by it all. Stunned that the 14 are not merely saying LL is innocent, they're saying there were no murders and there isn't even a case! That's just breathtaking. Now I think she might be innocent.

I wonder how long it will take for any decision to be made.

I really appreciate that you’re willing to change your views based on the best available evidence. That is a lot rarer than I expected before I waded into this case!

I've been very reluctant for a long time, because logically, I reasoned how could such a very, very long trial, litigated by KCs, have got it so wrong? But how could anyone have dreamed that there was all this key evidence that was never presented in court. What a spectacular cock-up.

What do you think will happen next?

Could be. Either way, it's beyond imagining that all this important evidence was not presented in court.

For the benefit of anyone reading this, I said Baby N but I meant Baby O.

This is bloody awful!

And here's the link detailing what really happened to Baby O. Can't believe LL was blamed for this one.

PETER HITCHENS: Why I'm BEGGING you to read these disturbing new claims in the Lucy Letby case | Daily Mail Online

Am feeling upset. Apparently we can't trust the highest institutions in the land.

Yes, and it's witness tampering.

Even if LL is released and given compensation, I bet most of it will go on legal fees. Her life is ruined even if she's innocent. It's all too awful for words.

I trusted the process. I trusted the judges and the lawyers and the court. I feel like a fool. If she is innocent, the justice system has made fools of us all.

So why was Lucy Letby caught standing over a baby with oxygen at 80 whilst she stood and watched?

Well, according to reports, she wasn’t “caught” doing that. Nursing staff say it’s correct procedure to wait for a time to see if the baby will improve on its own (I don’t know anything about the accuracy of this - just what I’ve read). A doctor saw her and did nothing, went away, and apparently remembered the incident months later when LL was suspected.

She wasn't necessarily - Dr Jayaram changed the time when this was meant to have happened between trials. Another doctor gives testimony contradicting Jayaram's. Jayaram himself says he didn't consider that incident suspicious in isolation, only once he started suspecting she was a baby killer.

Looking at a child when this happens is the usual first line of response - sometimes the machine is wrong, sometimes they self correct, and in general you don't handle premature babies or their tubes more than you have to.

So there was never much to this story.

I wonder, if it’s true that other nurses weren’t permitted to give evidence, whether the initial defence strategy was thrown for a loop by this. It’s hard to understand why the defence didn’t call opposing experts, and it sounds like the new counsel is being careful and polite about this. Maybe the defence was hoping for helpful witnesses from the hospital until the last minute.

I can understand why LL was put in the position of agreeing that the relevant babies must have been given insulin, as a matter of how trials and evidence work, but it was a significant misstep by the defence not to find another path around that problem.

Her colleagues weren’t allowed to be character witnesses! They were told by the trust that if they did they’d lose their jobs.

@Kittybythelighthouse do you have a source for the assertion that her colleagues were told they would lose their jobs if they were character witnesses? I have seen reports that some colleagues were informally advised by other colleagues and/or direct line managers not to get involved for their own benefit, but nothing to suggest that this was a formal directive from the trust or that they would lose their jobs if they did so. Apart from anything else, in NHS employment world (which I do know a reasonable bit about) it would be completely impossible to enact this.

Her new counsel has not heard anything from her previous defence team about why they conducted her defence in the way that they did because she has not waived her privilege to allow them to speak to each other.

@rubbishatballet could you please let me know where you have seen this? I have seen this stated a couple of times on this thread but it doesn’t fit with my understanding.

Does that matter, if it's true?

This right, when to intervene is a finely balanced thing- tricky.

Many people don’t realise that the autopsies/post mortems all returned natural causes.The investigation didn’t start for a year or more after the babies died. There was none of this suspicion before then.

And that therefore first we have to believe that the post mortems carried out by experienced pathologists were wrong. In every case. So this comes back to probability again.
Murder investigations begin either with an obvious victim or a suspicion that someone is a victim. Then they go looking for the perpetrator. In this case they identified a murderer and then went looking for who she could have murdered and how.