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.

Exactly this.

@Kittybythelighthouse 7 failed intubation attempts? That's horrendous. Words fail me.

What is clear from all the accusations of Letby's "suspicious" behaviour is that if she had slacked off, left other people to get to the children first, taken on easier (for her) shifts in the night nursery, the evidence of guilt wouldn't exist.

People are literally accusing an intensive care nurse providing one to one/two care of behaving suspiciously because she was there when children in intensive care showed symptoms of illness or distress.

Imagine the fuss if parents could say, my child was bleeding and Letby was off chatting in the corridors!

A nurse at a sick child's side is doing her job.

The Guardian has posted a really excellent podcast today: https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2025/feb/11/lucy-letby-and-the-medical-experts-who-believe-she-is-innocent-podcast

Among other things, the journalists explained how their own views changed during and after the trial as new evidence emerged.

Lawrence points out that the jury never saw the reports criticising the unit and its capacity to provide safe care, which would obviously had made a huge difference to their perspective on the case. They must feel really let down.

I read or heard on one of the recent articles that she represented 50% of the neonatal intensive care trained headcount on the unit.

That's right, there were only two nurses trained in the specialism of caring for intensive care cases, even though the ward
had three intensive care cots and those children should normally have one to one care.

There were actually no consultants who specialized in neonatology until after the ward was downgraded.

So Letby's manager all along kept saying, when the intensive care cots were busy, when I had very sick children in them, I asked Lucy to work extra shifts or switch shifts.

So if there was going to be a death, Letby had a much higher chance of being there for it than anybody else.

@Kittybythelighthouse my source was Tim Dowling Chester Standard live-feed of the trial Oct/Nov 2022 - Just had a quick look but the Chester Standard is a bit of a nightmare to search so will have a proper look later when I have more time

Happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken

@Efacsen there is no official source reflecting that version of events as described.

They were extremely poor at intubating neonates. That’s what happens when there is no neonatologist in a level 2 NICU.

This is very good thread @Kittybythelighthouse thanks for taking the time to post.

One thing I wanted to say to you, as I remember your posts after the New Yorker article, is how far we have come in such a short time.

They had, very sadly and of course accidentally, killed a child in 2014 through an intubation error. That's not disputed but admitted by the hospital and by the team involved.

The fact that they were still tolerating multiple failed attempts and using the wrong sizes of tube without understanding the consequence over the next two years shows that they failed to learn their limitations and put in a plan to train and improve. Their practice in this of all areas should have been meticulous after 2014.

That's a clear sign that the culture was against acknowledging failures and working to improve. Easier unfortunately to fall into believing there was an individual at fault.

Good thing they downgraded that unit at the same time as taking Letby off the ward. That likely saved lives.

It's just an unbelievable miscarriage of justice. It's basically a witch hunt facilitated by groupthink and confirmation bias.

The Guardian reporter quoted in that linked article by @Oftenaddled says he thought, after sitting through the trial and hearing all the evidence, that she was guilty 'on the balance of probabilities'... but the burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond reasonable doubt. That's actually a bit scary.

@Viviennemary posted earlier that she doesn't care what the evidence shows, she will never believe LL isn't a murderer. Presumably that includes even if the conclusion reached is that no murders occurred.

Not much point in trying to reason with someone with that mindset, really.

I concluded that some time ago.

What is clear from all the accusations of Letby's "suspicious" behaviour is that if she had slacked off, left other people to get to the children first, taken on easier (for her) shifts in the night nursery, the evidence of guilt wouldn't exist.

yes, from what I have read this would be the case - but because LL had done extra qualifications, she was offered more overtime and due to her saving for a house - she took up the overtime

"Judge Goss directed the jury that if they concluded that Letby had deliberately harmed babies one way, they could also conclude that she had inflicted deliberate harm on others, even if jurors were not certain of her methods".

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

This, to me, blows the arguments that there is no significant new evidence because it is all medical opinion out of the water.

Because the 14 experts aren't just 14 experts: they worked with two bioengineers who among other contributions conducted experiments to prove that Letby couldn't have delivered insulin by the mode suggested. There are a host of other details disproving the insulin cases, but this one is based on conducting new experimental research, which is recognized as grounds for appeal since at least the case of the Birmingham Six. Also a constant in forensic cases of course.

But I am amazed a judge can give a direction like that.

Fair play for owning it, but what else can he do at this point.

I find it very difficult to understand people who sat through the trial and didn’t see the glaring flaws in the prosecution junk science and statistics. I’d understand if people were just reading media headlines. But someone who was there?

As it was going on I found a trial thread on MN and went there to tear my hair out.

But I am amazed a judge can give a direction like that

I find that terrifying. It led to acceptance of a mode of murder that Evans completely made up. He admitted in court that it doesn’t exist in the body of evidence.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5092387-we-need-to-talk-about-lucy-letby?page=4

Interesting how views do seem to be shifting and changing.

I think the panel of 14 experts know better than the jury. Thats the main point. They have seen all the evidence. So obviously if they’d been the jury LL would have been found not guilty. So who is more likely to be right? 12 lay people with no medical knowledge or 14 world leading senior doctors.

or perhaps those posters don't come onto goulash threads and stay away?

Jury trials are fine as long as the evidence is correct and presented in the right way. Unlike the "expert" witness Dewi Evans who had an agenda to "win" surely that's not what his job was or should have been?