Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Lucy Letby: a condensed update on recent developments

684 replies

Kittybythelighthouse · 05/02/2025 12:36

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.

https://tinyurl.com/33hmv6cy

https://t.co/TRokh1hneu

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Oftenaddled · 10/02/2025 11:14

rubbishatballet · 10/02/2025 11:12

Beyond that, his grounds are likely new evidence and argument.

On this basis the CoA will have an expectation that any new defence team has been in communication with the previous defence team to understand why they did or did not put forward certain arguments during the original trials and appeal applications. And if the appellant has not waived privilege to allow this to happen then the CoA can draw inferences from it.

And that's easily done if indeed necessary.

rubbishatballet · 10/02/2025 11:24

@Oftenaddled I agree that waiving privilege could be very easily done, and indeed is generally pretty standard practice when changing legal representation. However, it is curious that so far LL has not agreed to this. It must be making things much more difficult (and potentially exposing) for Mark Macdonald than it needs be, ie working blind re insight from her previous defence team about why they went with the strategy that they did.

Oftenaddled · 10/02/2025 11:30

rubbishatballet · 10/02/2025 11:24

@Oftenaddled I agree that waiving privilege could be very easily done, and indeed is generally pretty standard practice when changing legal representation. However, it is curious that so far LL has not agreed to this. It must be making things much more difficult (and potentially exposing) for Mark Macdonald than it needs be, ie working blind re insight from her previous defence team about why they went with the strategy that they did.

How out of interest do you know she hasn't waived privilege?

McDonald has made two principles clear - he talks as little as possible about Letby and he is not going to discuss or criticize Myers. Neither Myers nor Letby is talking to the press.

I see people making this claim online and I wonder if they are confused. McDonald said last week that Letby would have to waive privilege to let the parents see the full medical reports. He wasn't talking about her dealings with Myers. I suspect he knows all about them, and that there is no particular scandal there.

springtimeconcerts · 10/02/2025 11:43

I have got a horrible feeling that there’s going to be an absolute refusal to accept that she could be innocent of any crime at all.

Original poster
Kittybythelighthouse · 10/02/2025 12:05

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/20/claim-nhs-hospital-told-nurse-dont-give-evidence-lucy-letby/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

If you don’t see how a boss saying “don’t testify for Letby, it’s for your own benefit” isn’t a threat, and witness tampering to boot, I’m not sure what to say. Besides anything else they could have been granted anonymity just like the Dr who was anonymised because he was married and had chased around after a nurse 20 years his junior, or the other Dr who was anonymised because she had directly caused the death of Noah Robinson the year before the deaths in this case.

David Davis also said last week that he’s been approached by 4 nurses from COCH who were warned off from testifying to her character.

OP posts:
Original poster
Kittybythelighthouse · 10/02/2025 12:06

rubbishatballet · 10/02/2025 04:11

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.

Show quote history

This is incorrect. Her new defence have said no such thing. They said they weren’t divulging such details in the press conference, not that she (or her previous defence) hadn’t told them.

OP posts:
Original poster
Kittybythelighthouse · 10/02/2025 12:10

ShortSighted101 · 10/02/2025 07:13

This thing about the not calling the pathologists who carried out the post mortems to the Thirwall enquiry confuses me. The enquiry is supposed to be looking why Lucy wasn't stopped earlier, predicated on the idea that she is a murderer.

Surely the key reason this happened is that all the deaths were deemed to be of natural causes initially otherwise there would have been a police investigation straight away.

So you would have thought these pathologists would have been absolutely key witnesses to the enquiry to understand how the evidence of malfeasance shown by the prosecution in the trial was overlooked in all these cases.

Or are they afraid the pathologists would say that the reason their reports showed natural causes was because there was no evidence of anything else?

Is this enquiry basically a giant waste of taxpayers money?

Show quote history

I believe you are absolutely right. However, in the Kathleen Folbigg case, the inquiry into how this was able to happen actually ended up providing the information that exonerated her. There is certainly a lot that has come up via Thirlwall that points directly to systemic failings.

OP posts:
Original poster
Kittybythelighthouse · 10/02/2025 12:12

rubbishatballet · 10/02/2025 07:32

And the 'threat' was much vaguer ie that it 'could affect their careers' not that they would be sacked

Well it has certainly affected the careers of everyone else who got involved, so possibly not the worst advice as it turns out?

It’s witness tampering. And again what about the drs who were anonymised to ‘protect’ them? One was given this anonymity because he was a married man chasing round after a nurse 20 years his junior! The same consideration could have been extended to nurses who wanted to speak up for their friend/colleague.

OP posts:
Original poster
Kittybythelighthouse · 10/02/2025 12:20

rubbishatballet · 10/02/2025 11:12

Beyond that, his grounds are likely new evidence and argument.

On this basis the CoA will have an expectation that any new defence team has been in communication with the previous defence team to understand why they did or did not put forward certain arguments during the original trials and appeal applications. And if the appellant has not waived privilege to allow this to happen then the CoA can draw inferences from it.

Again, what are you basing this assertion on? You’re conflating her not waiving client privilege PUBLICLY with an assumption that she hasn’t shared everything
with her new defence. This has never been said and it’s incredibly unlikely in any case.

OP posts:
Original poster
Kittybythelighthouse · 10/02/2025 12:23

rubbishatballet · 10/02/2025 11:24

@Oftenaddled I agree that waiving privilege could be very easily done, and indeed is generally pretty standard practice when changing legal representation. However, it is curious that so far LL has not agreed to this. It must be making things much more difficult (and potentially exposing) for Mark Macdonald than it needs be, ie working blind re insight from her previous defence team about why they went with the strategy that they did.

Again, this is based on nothing. We have no reason to think she has held back info from her new defence and every reason to think she hasn’t. The CoA potentially drawing negative inferences if she doesn’t waive client privilege would be in terms of what is known to the CoA, not her defence team. She may well waive privilege then. No reason for her to do so now.

OP posts:
Mirabai · 10/02/2025 12:29

One can’t say it’s not true that testifying for LL would harm their careers. It would. Even if they were anonymised to the public the hospital would know who they were. And in a department where the consultants are convinced of LL’s guilt at least outwardly - continuing to work there would surely be impossible.

I assume the hospital at this point assumed she was guilty as charged and viewed it like standing up for Shipman. But I’m not sure if the advice was altruistic or merely concerned with controlling the hospital narrative.

CerealPosterHere · 10/02/2025 12:32

myplace · 10/02/2025 07:51

I was one of the early concerned about this case, but think we shouldn’t get outraged by the babies’ first post-mortems and pathologists being over ridden.

The whole crux was that these were delicate, poorly children, hard to keep alive. Their deaths were not suspicious. That was supposed to be her modus operandi, if you like.

The fact that the initial pathology didn’t find anything was part of the signature.

The case rested on her cleverly targeting victims that were already at high risk, so unlikely to be considered suspicious.

However it’s all very witch trial- damned either way. You can see how hard it is to fight.

Mind it goes to show the mindset of us as a population, that people were so convinced by so little.

I've known 2 women die of air embolisms postnatally and their post mortems said air embolism as cause of death. So they must be able to find the embolus after death. So odd that these babies die of "air embolism" but the pathologist doesn't notice.

Oftenaddled · 10/02/2025 12:36

CerealPosterHere · 10/02/2025 12:32

I've known 2 women die of air embolisms postnatally and their post mortems said air embolism as cause of death. So they must be able to find the embolus after death. So odd that these babies die of "air embolism" but the pathologist doesn't notice.

Show quote history

I'm sorry to hear that.

When women die soon after giving birth, it is usually pulmonary embolism, and that type of embolism can be spotted at an autopsy.

A lot of the confusion in this case comes from the different symptoms of different types of embolism.

Original poster
Kittybythelighthouse · 10/02/2025 12:36

@Mirabai my point is that it isn’t appropriate for the trust to discourage employees from testifying as character witnesses. The hospital should not be in any way able to use this against them either. From what I understand those within the hospital already knew who was on which side. There had been a nurses vs consultants issue for a while. It wouldn’t have been news to the consultants, but the nurses should have been protected from negative repercussions anyway.

OP posts:
Oftenaddled · 10/02/2025 12:46

CerealPosterHere · 10/02/2025 12:32

I've known 2 women die of air embolisms postnatally and their post mortems said air embolism as cause of death. So they must be able to find the embolus after death. So odd that these babies die of "air embolism" but the pathologist doesn't notice.

Show quote history

I agree though: if there were credible symptoms of air embolism, the pathologists would have been more likely to find it than the prosecution witnesses, since they saw the bodies as well as the notes.

One of them was asked to consider the possibility of air embolism (accidental) for one of the babies Evans later "diagnosed".

She explicitly ruled it out.

sunshine244 · 10/02/2025 12:49

Efacsen · 10/02/2025 11:05

But the risk wasn't being 'well-managed' as evidenced by the RCPCH report into the unit in Sept 2016 ie

Insufficient consultants and lack of consultant ward rounds

Less than 50% of junior doctor posts filled

Less than 50% of nursing staff posts filled + wrong skill mix

Specialist equipment not being well maintained eg blood gas machine

There was a spike in all admissions to the unit a disproportionate number of whom were smaller and sicker covering the period in question

All these factors contributed to the change in the balance of risks

Plus the negative QCC report incl a similar spike in late term miscarriages/stillbirths on the Maternity Unit where no murders were found lurking but also probably significantly changed the sort of babies being admitted to the NICU

The judge ruled the RCPCH report inadmissible so the true state of the general functioning of the unit could not be made available to the court

Evidence from the Coroner was also not heard - tho' it's not clear why

Show quote history

Why was the report inadmissible? I really don't understand that.

Efacsen · 10/02/2025 13:02

sunshine244 · 10/02/2025 12:49

Why was the report inadmissible? I really don't understand that.

Show quote history

IDK maybe another poster will know more than me

My theory is that it was already a horribly complicated case with an overwhelming number of victims/charges and thus vast amounts of not easy to understand evidence and that the judge wanted it to be as far as possible a 'straightforward' murder case and not be a 'putting the NHS on trial' case

But I might be completely wrong

.

.

sunshine244 · 10/02/2025 13:05

Efacsen · 10/02/2025 13:02

IDK maybe another poster will know more than me

My theory is that it was already a horribly complicated case with an overwhelming number of victims/charges and thus vast amounts of not easy to understand evidence and that the judge wanted it to be as far as possible a 'straightforward' murder case and not be a 'putting the NHS on trial' case

But I might be completely wrong

.

.

Edited
Show quote history

Thats crazy.

It's like someone being charged for death by dangerous driving, but not being allowed to include a report about the poor conditions of the road...

Mirabai · 10/02/2025 13:15

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/02/2025 12:36

@Mirabai my point is that it isn’t appropriate for the trust to discourage employees from testifying as character witnesses. The hospital should not be in any way able to use this against them either. From what I understand those within the hospital already knew who was on which side. There had been a nurses vs consultants issue for a while. It wouldn’t have been news to the consultants, but the nurses should have been protected from negative repercussions anyway.

I don’t disagree it’s not appropriate, I just think we can’t say it’s not true. The advice should have been to follow their conscience with the awareness that it may harm their career.

I think if 4 nurses testified for and 7 consultants against they couldn’t really all work in the same department particularly given the verdict. And it’s not the consultants who would have be forced to leave…

Equally it would have leaked out on the NHS grapevine who the nurses were, even if anonymised at trial, so it may well have impacted their career going forward.

Efacsen · 10/02/2025 13:16

sunshine244 · 10/02/2025 13:05

Thats crazy.

It's like someone being charged for death by dangerous driving, but not being allowed to include a report about the poor conditions of the road...

Show quote history

I know what you mean - and I'm not really trying to excuse Judge Goss

There had been several hearings between LL being charged and the trial - some of those involved planning for how to run the trial

What Im not explaining very well is that there needed to be some consideration for the jurors - not setting them up to fail/having them all go off sick half way thro' the trial

So a compromise of sorts - but with unintended consequences for LL's defence?

Maybe I'm wrong

sunshine244 · 10/02/2025 14:11

Mirabai · 10/02/2025 13:15

I don’t disagree it’s not appropriate, I just think we can’t say it’s not true. The advice should have been to follow their conscience with the awareness that it may harm their career.

I think if 4 nurses testified for and 7 consultants against they couldn’t really all work in the same department particularly given the verdict. And it’s not the consultants who would have be forced to leave…

Equally it would have leaked out on the NHS grapevine who the nurses were, even if anonymised at trial, so it may well have impacted their career going forward.

Show quote history

Also - if there was doubt about LL being present for some of the deaths, it would be very easy to come up with the theory of an accomplice. In fact I think this was mentioned at one point in something I read about the insulin poisoning cases.

Efacsen · 10/02/2025 14:34

sunshine244 · 10/02/2025 14:11

Also - if there was doubt about LL being present for some of the deaths, it would be very easy to come up with the theory of an accomplice. In fact I think this was mentioned at one point in something I read about the insulin poisoning cases.

Show quote history

The first 'insulin case' Baby F was fundamentally flawed - LL was off duty when the 2nd bag of insulin was started - so the prosecution suggested that she had foreseen that the drip would tissue and so had contaminted lots of bags

But lots of babies didn't subsequently receive iv fluids and become hypoglycaemic

So she'd need an accomplice to contaminate the 2nd bag tho' it didn't actually get that far because it was believed that she'd contaminated lots of iv fluid bags

It's quite ridiculous - and Dr Lee has since ruled out insulin in bags for other reasons

MikeRafone · 10/02/2025 16:14

Efacsen · 10/02/2025 14:34

The first 'insulin case' Baby F was fundamentally flawed - LL was off duty when the 2nd bag of insulin was started - so the prosecution suggested that she had foreseen that the drip would tissue and so had contaminted lots of bags

But lots of babies didn't subsequently receive iv fluids and become hypoglycaemic

So she'd need an accomplice to contaminate the 2nd bag tho' it didn't actually get that far because it was believed that she'd contaminated lots of iv fluid bags

It's quite ridiculous - and Dr Lee has since ruled out insulin in bags for other reasons

Show quote history

this is astounding, do you have any links to this case of baby F and the 2nd bag of insulin?

PinkTonic · 10/02/2025 16:24

MikeRafone · 10/02/2025 16:14

this is astounding, do you have any links to this case of baby F and the 2nd bag of insulin?

Show quote history

In the press conference and the New Yorker article I think. It wasn’t a bag of insulin. It was dextrose which had allegedly been contaminated with insulin. This was based on the baby’s blood sugar staying too low. It transpired that the first infusion had tissued and instead of replacing the line and infusing the baby, they gave repeated bolus doses of dextrose. When you give glucose the body produces insulin. The repeated doses cause the blood sugar to go up and then down because of this. They said that the blood sugar stabilised when she went of duty but actually this coincided with them replacing the line and infusing a higher dose, so nothing to see there. In addition the insulin test was not fit for purpose and the panel of experts who looked at the results said that the insulin and C-peptide levels were in range for a neonate.

MikeRafone · 10/02/2025 16:40

PinkTonic · 10/02/2025 16:24

In the press conference and the New Yorker article I think. It wasn’t a bag of insulin. It was dextrose which had allegedly been contaminated with insulin. This was based on the baby’s blood sugar staying too low. It transpired that the first infusion had tissued and instead of replacing the line and infusing the baby, they gave repeated bolus doses of dextrose. When you give glucose the body produces insulin. The repeated doses cause the blood sugar to go up and then down because of this. They said that the blood sugar stabilised when she went of duty but actually this coincided with them replacing the line and infusing a higher dose, so nothing to see there. In addition the insulin test was not fit for purpose and the panel of experts who looked at the results said that the insulin and C-peptide levels were in range for a neonate.

Show quote history

thanks for your answer

Swipe left for the next trending thread