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.

The people accusing others of ‘clamouring to defend a baby murderer’ need to wonder whether they are participating in a cover up.

If those babies died because of inadequate care- which is looking likely- that’s an ongoing scandal that needs investigation.

As is the inadequate justice process that has brought us to this point. Those poor families.

The media have been appalling as well. So we have the media, the justice system and the hospital failing in their duty, and Lucy Letby carrying the can.

If, that is, this conviction is as unsafe as it looks.

I don’t know if she’s guilty or not but I can’t see those experts holding that press conference yesterday because they were bored and looking for something to do. They must have genuine concerns

Can you imagine discovering that a paper you wrote 35 years ago was misunderstood/misrepresented and used to convict someone of multiple murders of babies?

Without any attempt to check more current thinking or ask your advice- 35 years later?

I mean, surely they would expect advances in neonatal care in 35 years?!

I don't understand the people sneering at OP here, saying "you're very invested".

It's about the issue of a major criminal trial and sentencing being flawed and what the implications of that are, not specifically about being a Lucy Letby fan. Not hard to get that, surely?

There's a public enquiry ongoing in Liverpool right now. Have these "experts" been invited to give evidence to this?

Agreed. No one commenting on here attended the trial every day. No one here really understands the evidence as well as a court room did. And they found her guilty.

If there is clear New evidence that’s a different story, but there isn’t.

I wonder if Lucy Letby wasn’t young blonde haired and blue eyed, would people be so confident she’s innocent.

Anyone remember Elizabeth holmes? Obv a different area but a tale as old as time. Just astonishing she got 9 BILLION $ of investment before being found out. Wonder why.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElizabethHolmes

Exactly- why didn’t they? Many are wondering that!

I wonder if Lucy Letby wasn’t blonde haired and blue eyed, would people be so confident she’s innocent.

If LL was Black I would be even more convinced she was innocent. Female serial killers are very rare, Black serial killer are rare, Black female serial killers are vanishingly rare. Black female serial killers of babies who have no history of trauma and are nurses? Not in a million years.

Would a Black LL have received such a lot of media attention? Don't know, probably not.

At the unfair trial you mean? Whenever there is a media outcry during or before a trial the defendant is already at an unfair disadvantage.
The decision had already been made that she was guilty before the trial ended. The media constantly referring to her as a murderer. Do you not think for one second that this would have had a profound influence on the jury's decision? You don't have to be present at a trial to conclude if someone is guilty. Evidence is gold standard, no evidence, no conviction.
This is why the death penalty should not and will not ever return here, because of miscarriages of justice. There have been far too many innocent people executed.
it's easy to have a biased view from day one from all the media outcry.
I'll leave it to the experts to do their stuff.
Unfortunately if she is innocent her life will never be the same again as people will still think she did it.

I don't see it as that either.

I want them to make sure that they are very, very certain, and to explore all the possibilities. Murder or medical negligence these already vulnerable children were put in an even more vulnerable position as they were not protected well enough.

I am not really concerned about blame, but root cause and prevention.

As someone who has a child who spends a lot of time in ICUs I don't want it happening to my child. Accidently or purposefully and every single detail does need to be poured over in order to understand and prevent.

I would feel safer if it were deliberate, as she is locked away now and cannot do the same again, and luckily people who want to kill children are rare, but procedures need to be checked and improved prevent another evil person being able to do these things.

God forbid she is innocent because that means that the system failed those children in its care and unless steps are taken it can happen again and again. If there is the tiniest chance that she is a scapegoat then I want that to be uncovered so that the problem's in the system are identified, the people with responsibility to protect and care for our babies are held to account and new systems put in place to make care safer.

I'm with you, OP.

I'm yet to be fully convinced beyond reasonable doubt that a crime actually took place at all to be honest. Especially now that these well regarded international experts have now also weighed in heavily questioned it. About time too.

Why is wanting to be sure that there has been no serious miscarriage of justice regarded by some as trying to defend a baby killer? That's just hugely emotive language which doesn't help with establishing the facts.

The Countess of Chester was a struggling hospital and it's neonatal unit was not one that should have been looking after some of these very vulnerable babies, hence why it has since been downgraded.

The Liverpool hospital where Letby had also worked has yet to come up with anything concrete since 2017.

What if there was no baby killer? What it was medical negligence or errors on a poorly run and under qualified unit? What if that means that a scapegoat was sought in order for some people there to cover their own arses?

None of those scenarios are impossible whatever was or wasn't presented in the original trial. Indeed, they seem to be becoming more likely by the day now and we really need to check thoroughly that they didn't happen. If they did happen then it wouldn't be the first time.

Why the inverted commas? They ARE experts!

beyond resonable doubt- and justice HAVE to allign.

I imagine this was one of the reasons these (actual) experts were chosen. They have to be impartial to make objective observations.

If there is clear New evidence that’s a different story, but there isn’t

There is very clear new evidence that the paper used to convict her was incorrectly interpreted. It was misinterpreted to support findings which aren’t valid. This from the doctor who wrote the paper and the reason for the panel being convened.

It is so offensive, suggesting that LL is getting an easy ride for being white/blonde.

The photo used of her makes her look dead behind the eyes. She’s been strung up by the media from the get go.

The push back against this conviction comes from medical specialists concerned about misuse of statistics and misunderstanding of neonatal care.
Unless you think those neonatologists are only spending time and effort on reviewing this because she’s a young blonde of course.

What are your qualifications if you are sneering about this highly qualified and experienced group of global experts?

Letby did seem to have some spectacularly poor legal representation in her original trial. For reasons known only to themselves, the only expert they actually called was a plumber. Nobody knows why really.

She has a different team now, I believe. Lets hope they are more competent. They seem to be better at the moment.

Not sure why it’s offensive but so be it 🤷‍♀️

https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/lucy-letby-white-priviledge-opinion

I’m an intelligent and educated person but the ins and outs of the evidence presented at the trials would have sounded like a foreign language to me. I struggle to see how a jury of lay people could have understood the medical jargon in any way that made them able to convict or not. I’m assuming they looked at the chart that showed Letby on duty for the majority of the deaths and based their decision on that. Plus the egging on of the media who labelled the woman a murderer before the trial was over. It’s all a mess and one that’ll have to be unravelled by those with the relevant knowledge of NICU procedures.

If that happened to me I wouldn't be able to sleep at night! I'd be horrified. And I'd be doing my utmost to tell the world that my article did not in any way say what they were trying to make it say.

Thanks very much for starting this thread, OP!

Oh well, if a comment piece was printed in glamour magazine, what more evidence could anyone ask for?

Being blonde and blue eyed has got F all to do with it.
Why are you so insistent on saying it’s only because colour?
The point is she got whole life sentences for something that wasn’t proved beyond reasonable doubt.

😂🤷‍♀️ ok

I mean, if she’s innocent then her ‘privilege’ did her fuck all good.

In fact the media salivated over the idea of an unassuming little white girl being a monster.

Anyone remember Lindy Chamberlain? She claimed a dingo snatched (and ate) her baby. She was convicted after “experts” claimed dingoes would never prey on humans. Also, blood was found in the boot of the family car. A few years later, her baby’s clothing was found outside a dingo lair. The “blood” was re-examined and turned out to be residue from when the vehicle was manufactured.