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.

I never said ‘it’s only because colour’. I was asking a question. But your comment only shows how you jump to conclusions and fill in the gaps with your own bias. That’s only human nature. This is why we have courts of law.

It’s very strange that you interpret any interest or concern over a possible enormous miscarriage of justice, as ‘clamouring to defend a baby murderer’. The backbone of our society is a fair and unbiased legal system in which every individual case is given due and fair scrutiny and in which any mistakes can be rectified by revisiting the evidence if needed. She may be guilty and she may not be. But the fact that multiple enormously qualified scientists, who have no agenda or reason to involve themselves other than professional integrity, have chosen to step in and say what they have, is absolutely huge. It merits a conversation. Sticking your fingers in your ears and insisting that she was found guilty in court and that’s that, is pretty foolish when you consider some of the astounding miscarriages of justice that have occurred thoroughly history, no?

I’m absolutely not saying she’s innocent. But in this society we don’t stop holding our legal system up to due scrutiny even after trials are over.

I quoted the wrong poster there but my point stands!

We don't know the identities of people who asked to give evidence to the enquiry but weren't accepted. It is unlikely they will be invited because the Inquiry is set up to ask why Letby wasn't stopped, not whether she did it.

There Really is cause for reasonable doubt at this juncture - evidence presented to the jury at the time and on which they relied for their decision is now being demonstrated to be unsound. This should absolutely be investigated.

Anyone interested in how statistics can be misused and result in wrongly convicting a nurse leading them to be incarcerated for seven years before the conviction was over turned should read the Lucia De Berk case. It happens. The parallels between that case and Letby are quite marked. Blindly saying over and over again 'the jury was right the jury was right' does not make them right. I agree with PPs that an integral part of our society is our justice system, and our ability to hold it to account. We have to question.

When people say they 'followed the trial closely', I wonder if they mean they listened to the Daily Mail podcast? I listened to the Daily Mail podcast, and I think it presented her totally and purposefully as guilty, I thought she was guilty initially. But, I kept thinking 'what if'? I joined an online forum, because at the time you couldn't even voice your doubts over the 'fair trial' in public because you'd be accused of protecting a child murderer. I was concerned about the circumstantial evidence, I was concerned about the 'expert witnesses'.

I'm glad some extremely clever people are invested in investigating this further. Too much doubt has been exposed now, it must be looked into. What if she is innocent? If she is innocent, she could be any of us. If she is innocent, what does this say about the culture within NHS? If she is innocent what does this say about the level of care being provided to our most vulnerable and what does it say about accountability?

This.

And... 'invested' used as an insult to OP?
Invested in what, justice? Hospitals being funded to be able to run with patient safety in mind?
Wellll.... yeah. We're invested.

Being blonde and blue eyed hasn't saved Lucy Letby. She was convicted of the murders. It is medical experts who are questioning the conviction, who I assume are not all white or all British. If there wasn't strong reasons to question the conviction, why would these people risk their reputations and waste their time?

I don't know if she did it or not, but it's a very interesting case, and offending the parents of the dead babies is not a reason to keep a potentially innocent woman in prison. There has to be absolute certainty and it's not impossible for a jury to be wrong.

On a previous thread, someone said she was deeply unpleasant in court- can anyone expand on this- I haven't heard about her unpleasant behaviour at the trial.

Why did she have such a poor defence team?

she didn’t! Her barrister was Kings Counsel ffs which is more than can be said for the new one, I believe.

she didn’t! Her barrister was Kings Counsel ffs which is more than can be said for the new one, I believe.

Dewi Evans referred to one of these ‘so called experts’ papers as part of the prosecution’s case for conviction wrongly!

No one here felt the emotive words of a barrister directed straight at us, either. Didn't have very confident, articulate 'experts' or doctors showing absolute surety in their comments, either. Nor had to make a decision when bombarded by posts on social media, potentially friends, family or colleagues all with an opinion about those poor babies or could carry memories of unsympathetic or neglectful medical care at the hands of more junior staff making them more prone to believing a wicked witch nurse was more likely to deliberately hurt them instead of systematic fuck ups that managers wanted to cover up because they didn't care about the babies involved, they just wanted their performance related pay awards and a future nomination for an MBE/OBE/Knighthood/whatever honours could come their way.

People can be wrong, especially IF the experts are so very, very sure in their evidence. It's happened before - which is why it's important that this goes ahead - because if it was wrong, then there are people out there, very well paid ones, who allowed babies to die and not only lied about it, they stitched up a female nurse in order to ensure that they escaped culpability and continued to be employed in their very well paid roles. Literally, the point of the Law - to protect those with lesser power and influence and ensure that the decisions made are correct, rather than just what the guys with authority/influence/money/power say is the truth.

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.

Is this correct? She was convicted of killing a baby she never actually came into contact with? WTF?

And if not why not? I imagine Dr Lee would have offered to do so.

😂 You literally ‘asked’ whether it was because of her ‘blue eyes and blonde hair’.
How is that not mentioning colour?

I was once accused of something (relatively minor), and the injustice of it still burns nearly 15 years later. The eye witness accounts were mind blowing, people saying stuff that simply didn’t happen, they made things up that were totally at odds with initial reports, seemingly getting swept up in the need to protect someone else. It wasn’t criminal, in fact I was the injured party, but the rush to protect someone else was something else. I tried to get the incident removed from a record (not criminal, employment - I worked for the police at the time), because it wasn’t true.

Fighting ‘the system’ you’ve believed in all your life to deliver justice is often futile and incredibly disheartening when someone else has laid the groundwork for the narrative. I saw the records, I saw how I was stitched up,

If she is innocent, I’m not surprised she came across as resigned, odd or not behaving how someone would expect her to behave, you believe that eventually the truth will out and the systems in place will be exonerate you. It sometimes doesn’t work like that, especially if someone is determined to tell a different story.

No.

I said (amongst other things) ‘I wonder if Lucy Letby wasn’t young blonde haired and blue eyed, would people be so confident she’s innocent.’

You made up anything else.

Not exactly but it's just as bad.

The evidence the prosecution used for murder was based on an X-ray showing air in the child's stomach. They used this to argue Letby had forced air down a feeding tube and killed the child.

The child died at four days old. Letby was in work for the first time in his life that night.

The x-ray used as evidence of her "crime" was taken when the child was three days old.

The most worrying thing about all of this is that poor care, poor management, and toxic culture potentially caused babies to die.
The second most worrying thing is that a staff member who is poorly paid for the level of responsibility in their role, poorly supported and potentially poorly trained can be singled out as a Scape goat for the organisational failings
Why would anyone want to work in such a job.
I have thought all along the charging and conviction was not robust.
A hugely complex case with masses of very technical evidence which no one involved in the investigation or trial appeared qualified to interpret and translate for the jury.

They made a strategic decision which may have been the best available.

The defence expert witness wrote reports. We don't know what's in them exactly, but we do know he believes her conviction was unsafe.

Her lawyer didn't put him on the stand. But he did use the reports. He used them to question the prosecution witnesses himself.

There are advantages to this. If the expert was easily flustered, likely to lose his temper, couldn't explain things or in any way might not come across well to the jury, putting him on the stand could go wrong.

There are disadvantages. Questions aren't evidence. A lawyer can ask a question or make a statement and it will be reported in the press, but it's not evidence. So we all know the prosecution expert asked Letby if she got a thrill from killing babies, if she was "sweet on" one doctor etc. He doesn't need evidence to ask these questions. They only become evidence if she answers and agrees. But they influence people of course.

The strategy was to ask questions which would demonstrate how ridiculous the prosecution experts claims were. For whatever reason - I think mainly because Evans was a shameless bluffer - it didn't work.

Would it have been better with Hall on the stand, so the judge would have to include his comments in summing up as evidence? Maybe, but also, maybe not.

I would urge people to watch the press conference. I found the journalist's questions particularly enlightening, at around 1hr30.
Suggestions that a colleague, instrumental in her conviction, was responsible for puncturing the patient's liver and death. Suggestions of many whistle blowers, mainly nurses too scared to come forward because of the culture of blame from senior medical staff.

The panel describe themselves as the best of the best in neonatology.

https://www.youtube.com/live/N0nmoGes3IU?si=GT9p03Iq7A6TXyoZ

A bit like all the clamouring to defend those sub post masters who stole money from the post office…….

If there are any valid doubts about the safety of this conviction then it needs to investigated. Maybe she did do it, maybe she didn’t. What matters is that the truth is established, whatever that may be.

There’s such a difference between correlation and causation and I think the investigating officers forgot this. Also anyone who has worked within or alongside the NHS are well aware that huge mistakes are made every day. I listened to the podcast, and thought it was terribly skewed and did not represent unbiased reporting. Also serial killers without any early trauma or any signs in their development of things being awry are very, very unlikely.