Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

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

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
springtimeconcerts · 05/02/2025 22:09

DarkForces · 05/02/2025 22:07

So would you leave your baby alone in the care of Ms Letby?

This isn’t really a ‘gotcha’, is it.

Because even if exonerated of all charges, she isn’t going to nurse again, she isn’t (likely to) work ever again, she probably won’t leave her parents’ house much again.

Her life is ruined and that’s the tragedy of it all.

Kittybythelighthouse · 05/02/2025 22:15

DarkForces · 05/02/2025 22:07

So would you leave your baby alone in the care of Ms Letby?

I can’t imagine why I’d be doing that given we aren’t related and she is unlikely to take up childminding as a career path after this, but hypothetically, yes. I don’t think she is a baby killer. Not sure why you think this is a gotcha tbh.

I wouldn’t trust Dewi Evans with a child though. He’s argued for paedophilia to be decriminalised.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1fpvo30/re_query_about_dewi_evans/

OP posts:
Oftenaddled · 05/02/2025 22:15

DarkForces · 05/02/2025 22:07

So would you leave your baby alone in the care of Ms Letby?

People will always struggle to shake off the association, whether she is innocent or guilty.

mealienpleasehelp · 05/02/2025 22:24

Oftenaddled · 05/02/2025 14:10

That's a brilliant post. Thank you.

This - I came on to say the same!
Very thought provoking, interesting post OP.

EliflurtleAndTheInfiniteMadness · 05/02/2025 22:36

DarkForces · 05/02/2025 22:07

So would you leave your baby alone in the care of Ms Letby?

Would you leave your baby alone in the care of a random female even if you knew 100% they weren't a murderer? That question is just as "valid" to this discussion. Personally my standard is a little higher than not a murderer, not leaving my baby with her would have nothing to so with her guilt or otherwise. If she was a family member or close friend I trusted of course I would. As she's a stranger no I wouldn't.

ThatsNotMyTeen · 05/02/2025 23:09

springtimeconcerts · 05/02/2025 22:09

This isn’t really a ‘gotcha’, is it.

Because even if exonerated of all charges, she isn’t going to nurse again, she isn’t (likely to) work ever again, she probably won’t leave her parents’ house much again.

Her life is ruined and that’s the tragedy of it all.

The only person who ruined her life is her!

Mirabai · 05/02/2025 23:30

DarkForces · 05/02/2025 22:07

So would you leave your baby alone in the care of Ms Letby?

Yes. I don’t think she had anything to do with the babies’ deaths. Probably not with Harkness, Jayaram, Gibbs or Brearey though.

Rainbows89 · 05/02/2025 23:52

What will happen to Lucy if she is released from
prison? I can’t imagine how she could begin to get her life back on track after everything that has happened. Presumably she would be entitled to compensation?

Gluteustothemaximus40 · 06/02/2025 00:09

In a very weird way, if she was innocent, then at least every time a man kills, and women go ‘oh more male violence’ it would stop the ‘what about Lucy letby’ 🤷‍♀️

tallcurvey · 06/02/2025 00:37

@Kittybythelighthouse

shebwas convicted on circumstantial evidence only which is very rare in the Uk.
So any issues need investigation

MrsTerryPratchett · 06/02/2025 01:13

So would you leave your baby alone in the care of Ms Letby?

Some parenting experts now say that the standard for leaving your baby in someone's care is different to the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

There are about 5 people I would leave DD with. Does that mean we should lock up 8 billion people?

Kittybythelighthouse · 06/02/2025 01:33

Cattery · 05/02/2025 14:40

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

I’ve seen people say that they’re in it for a “free trip to London” 🥴 First of all, they are working on their own dime.

Secondly, wtf? If you were a wealthy semi retired well regarded person like Lee would you want a “free trip to London” in February (to speak at a press conference!) so badly that you’d spend months and months digging through medical evidence and writing reports?

It’s just the most desperate reaching. Anything to avoid acknowledging the extraordinary truth - that it is an historical first for so many world leading experts to be so aggrieved at the misuse of the science from their specialist area that they group together like the flipping Power Rangers to to defend a convicted ‘serial killer’. These people would not be doing this without good reason. They are doing it out of principle and decency. Thank god people like this exist.

OP posts:
Vaxtable · 06/02/2025 01:37

Viviennemary · 05/02/2025 13:21

None of these so called experts worked with Lucy Letby or attended the trial.

Nor did the ‘experts’ used by the prosecution did they?

Kittybythelighthouse · 06/02/2025 01:41

partystress · 05/02/2025 14:31

This is why I really think the jury system is flawed. Nobody is ‘clamouring to defend a baby murderer’. The people determined to not look again are the ones who would seemingly prefer to live with a possibly incorrect verdict and heads in the sand about what went wrong that could be prevented in future.

That kind of emotionally driven thinking is what leads to flawed investigations, trials and verdicts.

Exactly. If this was a result of systemic failings sweeping it under the rug will only lead to more dead babies. We need to be sure about these things. It really does affect all of us.

OP posts:
Convolvulus · 06/02/2025 02:09

What is Dr Shoo Lee's explanation for the skin discolouration that was observed?

Convolvulus · 06/02/2025 02:10

Vaxtable · 06/02/2025 01:37

Nor did the ‘experts’ used by the prosecution did they?

They attended the trial and were subject to full cross-examination.

NigelHarmansNewWife · 06/02/2025 07:22

Rainbows89 · 05/02/2025 23:52

What will happen to Lucy if she is released from
prison? I can’t imagine how she could begin to get her life back on track after everything that has happened. Presumably she would be entitled to compensation?

Her life has been destroyed already and if she is exonerated she may need a new identity, etc. unless she uses the notoriety to campaign. It happens and has happened for people who have been rightly convicted because of the threat the baying mob will come after them even after they've done their time.

Andrew Makinson spent years in prison due to the police fitting him up. He's still waiting for his compensation three years after his release. The system treats people appallingly.

Oftenaddled · 06/02/2025 07:44

NigelHarmansNewWife · 06/02/2025 07:22

Her life has been destroyed already and if she is exonerated she may need a new identity, etc. unless she uses the notoriety to campaign. It happens and has happened for people who have been rightly convicted because of the threat the baying mob will come after them even after they've done their time.

Andrew Makinson spent years in prison due to the police fitting him up. He's still waiting for his compensation three years after his release. The system treats people appallingly.

Edited

And at his last application to the CCRC, officials noted that they would not refer him unless the DNA (from the real rapist biting the victim) matched an identifiable individual. It wouldn't be enough that is wasn't his DNA. Lamentable levels of incompetence or cynicism there.

onwardsup4 · 06/02/2025 08:05

Convolvulus · 06/02/2025 02:09

What is Dr Shoo Lee's explanation for the skin discolouration that was observed?

The report has been posted on here, read it it has explanations for every single thing. Better still watch it. Dr Shoo communicates it all very well.

Oftenaddled · 06/02/2025 08:17

Convolvulus · 06/02/2025 02:09

What is Dr Shoo Lee's explanation for the skin discolouration that was observed?

It's different for each case. He also explains why injecting air into the veins wouldn't cause it. It's a different kind of air embolism that affects the skin.

Cattery · 06/02/2025 08:52

Kittybythelighthouse · 06/02/2025 01:33

I’ve seen people say that they’re in it for a “free trip to London” 🥴 First of all, they are working on their own dime.

Secondly, wtf? If you were a wealthy semi retired well regarded person like Lee would you want a “free trip to London” in February (to speak at a press conference!) so badly that you’d spend months and months digging through medical evidence and writing reports?

It’s just the most desperate reaching. Anything to avoid acknowledging the extraordinary truth - that it is an historical first for so many world leading experts to be so aggrieved at the misuse of the science from their specialist area that they group together like the flipping Power Rangers to to defend a convicted ‘serial killer’. These people would not be doing this without good reason. They are doing it out of principle and decency. Thank god people like this exist.

Absolutely. I watched all of the press conference on YouTube last night and their explanations are nothing short of astonishing x

myplace · 06/02/2025 08:57

DarkForces · 05/02/2025 22:07

So would you leave your baby alone in the care of Ms Letby?

I wouldn’t leave my baby in the care of that hospital.

Mirabai · 06/02/2025 09:08

Convolvulus · 06/02/2025 02:09

What is Dr Shoo Lee's explanation for the skin discolouration that was observed?

The kind of skin mottling described at trial is common in neonates from a variety of causes - infection, trauma, poor perfusion etc - according to neonatologists, nor did Shoo Lee observe anything like it in his study.

Why not read his report?

Shakeyourbaublesandsmile · 06/02/2025 09:20

Worldinyourhands · 05/02/2025 14:03

Crikey - you're very invested aren't you? What are you hoping to achieve?

The case is with the CCRC for review. It'll likely be thrown out when they weigh up the supposed 'new' evidence against what was already heard in the 10 month trial. If it isn't - it'll be considered for appeal. Until then - what are you trying to achieve? Campaigning on behalf of a baby murderer is a weird hobby.

I think there is new medical evidence being presented from what the OP wrote

This case has implications for many people other than than the accused. If you are a parent of a child requiring neo-natal care you what to be as confident as possible that the care is safe and as best as it can be, not negligent on a unit and organisational level

Secondly I’m pretty sure neonatal HCP what to be assured they can not be accused and convicted in the event of a death/harm on inadequate weak evidence.

This case is just as much about confidence in the care provided and the justice system which has many stakeholders

CeceliaImrie · 06/02/2025 10:46

Also agree with op. She'll be out by Christmas, probably with a substantial undisclosed financial settlement to come.

Disgusting.