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.

It's a difficult one because there sometimes are criminal cases that require explanation of complex stuff where there might be competing experts. Evans obviously is a twat but he's also not the only prosecution expert from this trial. Let's say LL had also presented expert evidence in her favour at the original trial, which we now know she could've. That would potentially have left non clinically trained jurors having to pick which they preferred.

It’s incredible how far we have come.
And yet at the same time unsurprising that as soon as reporting restrictions lifted the floodgates opened, given how egregiously ridiculous the case against her was.
The astonishing thing really is that she was ever convicted. The level of stupidity among the police and legal system is quite something.

I remember you too! Things have changed so much since that.

I'm thinking about how much abuse and threats etc people like this guy faced

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/lucy-letby-supporter-who-thinks-28668584.amp

That’s a shame. I’ve found some lovely goulash recipes on mumsnet.

It was always a case of the emperor having no clothes on. I’m glad that it finally seems like sanity is being restored.

There’s a term ‘noble cause corruption’. I think that + groupthink + confirmation bias are how it got to the extreme that it reached. I have to say I’ll never get over Cheshire police making that toe curling ‘documentary’ about how great they are. Astonishing hubris and lack of self awareness on display there.

An article trying to "call out" a 72-year old autistic statistician, who was entirely right about the statistics and whose formal invited lecture didn't reference Letby at all.

(I mention the autism because he declares it on his social media accounts)

This tendency to try to bully people with the "wrong" opinions into silence is extremely problematic.

There are a lot of people of limited intelligence that cannot understand anything other than the guilty verdict. They've no grasp of the fact that a guilty verdict doesn't automatically mean guilty. It's very surface level, fixed reasoning.

@Kittybythelighthouse no clotting factor?! That’s horrific.

That's an incredibly simplistic interpretation. Obviously guilty verdicts are not infallible, otherwise we wouldn't have an appeal system. Nevertheless, when someone has been through over ten months of evidence and two trials, and two juries who have heard and seen all the evidence - which is more than we have - and is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by both, you are starting with a very strong likelihood of guilt.

Yes. He’s an old man with a good heart, clearly. He was instrumental in getting Lucia de Berk exonerated. The bullying he gets on X is just horrible. I can’t stand seeing older people (in particular) being jeered at and mocked. Some of it is truly vile.

Yep just one more item on the conveyor belt of cockups in that NICU.

That’s an appalling article on the statistician!

It basically said, ‘Man who thinks Letby is innocent comes to uk to give a statistics lecture.’.

Literally, how dare a man who doubts the statistics evidence used in the trial, come here and speak!

heard and seen all the evidence

they didn't hear all the circumstantial evidence though - they didn't hear may things that the public are now aware of of

colleges advised not to take the stand for LL as it may affect them badly
The state of the NHS special care baby unit

all the evidence collected by the prosecution was to paint a picture of a guilty person
the defence it would seem relied on beyond reasonable doubt of murder and obviously a person is not guilty until proved so and you don't prove someone "not guilty" in this country you defend what the prosecution are stating

Dr Neena Modi, Professor of Neonatology at Imperial College London, former head of the RCPCH, and one of the members of the expert panel, writes in The Guardian today “We each and every one of us wants and needs to be able to trust our legal processes, hence the possibility of a horrific miscarriage of justice should be faced with honesty and tackled quickly. A further wrong will not make a right.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/12/lucy-letby-case-trial-justice

No paywall link: archive.ph/Hpm8E

Excellent article.

I worked in the CJS for years. Prior to joining I (naively) thought that police investigate cases with an open mind. I remember finding it quite shocking that they find a likely culprit, then look for everything they can to convict the person, ignoring anything that suggests otherwise. It can sometimes be quite a subtle difference, but its an important one. And I think some people still don't realise that.

As soon as LL was put in the frame, the pressure would have been on to arrest and charge her.

I find it quite frightening. People make a lot of her not showing much reaction or emotions. But I think I would "shut down" too, as I wouldn't be able to cope.

We follow each other on Twitter and ime he’s tough as old boots, I think he qutie enjoys arguing with chumps, and anyway, he knows he’s right about the stats.

@DancingLions the whole thing had been going on for quite a while by the time she was first arrested. She was arrested a further two times. She was then kept on remand in prison, as if she was a flight risk. It had been years by the time she eventually stood in court. In the meantime she had developed PTSD and was on medication. She was a totally broken woman by then, which was of course the point.

None of it was new by the time of the arrest video and the much later trial. Expecting her to do a poor soap opera queen performance of flailing and wringing her hands after all that shows a very poor grasp on human behaviour, but we all know such a display would have been viewed through the lens of guilt and used against her anyway. This also overlooks the fact that she DID actually cry in court and not only about her house, her dad, and her pets - which, by the way, any one of us would do in the same situation. She cried when speaking about some of the babies too.

She’s manipulative when she shows emotion. She’s cold and unempathetic when she doesn’t. She cannot win for losing with these witch hunting muck rakers and that’s exactly how history will remember them.

Some years back there was a documentary about a childminder who was accused of shaking to death one of the babies in her care. She denied it, no previous history of violence. Dr Waney Squier was also on the program explaining why she thought the diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome was unsafe.
Also featured was a police detective involved in the case. She described Dr Squier’s intervention as ‘unhelpful’ and basically said, ‘we’re trying to get a guilty verdict here and she comes along and makes it harder for us!’
I was appalled. That the police could be so openly uninterested in scientific truth and only interested in getting the outcome they wanted.
I was even more appalled when I found out recently what happened to Waney Squier after.

I hadn’t heard the term ‘noble cause corruption’ before but yes, absolutely that.

I love Richard Gill. I want him to be my friend. Brain the size of a planet, huge amount of integrity and intellectual honesty, and no filter at all. He says the most impolitic things, because it’s what he believes. At first I thought it was just that he was so eminent that he had nothing to prove and didn’t need to care any more, but now I suspect he has always been like that.
I don’t see his Twitter interactions as him getting bullied, though the police attempting to shut him down was.

Bloody well said.

In the 16th and 17th century witch trials they exhausted the witches and broke them down by keeping them awake and walking them around all night. It is absolutely clear that this is a slower version of the same thing, exhausting Lucy Letby by making her endure years of tension in the excruciatingly long build up to the case followed by a months long trial. Wear someone out enough and then when you browbeat them in the dock of course they are going to slip up at some point and contradict themselves or admit to something they could not reasonably know, as Lucy did when she was pushed into agreeing the babies must have been deliberately poisoned with insulin.
Whenever I see someone hang their argument for her guilt on that admission I take it as proof they really haven’t thought properly about what happened in that courtroom and what this trial really was.

I read that this morning - it was a fantastic article.

Sadly, what she says is what many non-experts have said, that after the RCPCH review a high level detailed review of each case, by a panel of exterior genuine experts, should have taken place (which the RCPCH recommended). If it had, foul play could have been ruled out then and the case would never have gone to trial.

I’ve never understood why that didn’t happen - or did the consultants go to the police before it happened? If anyone knows, I’d be interested.

Interesting. We’ve seen this pattern in other moj like Colin Stagg and Barry George.

It’s quite common in other countries too - police find someone to blame and look for evidence. In countries with the Code Napoleon, police don’t have the power to instigate their own independent investigations, the magistrate directs the line of enquiry and if he gets it wrong the case is fucked.