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.

The evidence against her was overwhelming, detailed and complex

Apparently not.

@Thisishuge2025

@Thisishuge2025 Sorry managed to press send before I wrote my post! I've seen a lot of press coverage. The press conference has been covered and there are articles about what could happen next. Also articles with the reaction of one of the parents and click bait tabloid pieces about what Letby is like in prison.

The case is with the CCRC now. They are likely to take months, possibly longer, to reach any kind of decision. It will be a long time before there is any more actual news to report.

I know there are articles, but only when you look for it, I watch the news daily from 5am until I leave for work at 6.45 (I need time to wake up) I haven't seen anything until I saw these threads and happened to be making a coffee at work when the news broke about the press conference. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying it hasn't seemed to be in media the same way as before or sh9rtly after her conviction

It has been widely covered in all the main media outlets, from broadsheets to tabloids, across the political spectrum fairly consistently. At least once a week there’s some new element being uncovered in The Guardian, The Telegraph, Private Eye covered it extensively, The Daily Mail are constantly on it, with wildly different perspectives, they’ll do anything for clicks. I feel like it’s barely out of the news tbh. It’s even made international news. It was in one of the biggest Italian (and French I believe) papers last year when experts doubts were first made public. The New Yorker, one of the gold standard publications in international journalism, famous for its fact checking process, did a controversial investigative long read on doubts about the convictions last May. That article actually broke the dam of general reporting on issues with the case. It’s barely been out of the news since in my experience.

That said, it depends I suppose on what comes across your field of vision or what sources you visit regularly. It has been reported on a lot though. Where do you normally get your news? Happy to send you links if you want to read more about it.

If you’re watching the BBC they’ve been much more quiet about it. There’s a bit of egg on face incoming there. Judith Moritz covered all of the trial and inquiry, made two panoramas, and wrote a book about it, without fact checking pretty much anything Dr Evans or Cheshire police fed to her. Much of what she has repeated is now known to be false. Journalistic standards went absolutely out the window. The BBC are being very BBC like about that imo.

Typical BBC! Thank you for clarifying. I just want justice so interested to see what happens next

One other question although again, it may have been covered but why the refusals for appeal when they demonstrated evidence in the trail was flawed? Or was that proved after appeals?

Here’s the thing, The Court of Appeal will generally double down on jury trial decisions. Every miscarriage of justice you’ve heard of, and all the ones you haven’t, had their applications to appeal rejected. Sally Clarke’s was turned down also. They almost always are.

The CCRC was created in the first place, after the Birmingham 6 exoneration, as a safety valve against the justice system marking its own homework. Trouble is that the CCRC is slow as heck and takes up to ten years to get round to sending cases to the appeals court. That said, they have major egg on their face with a spate of recent high profile fumbles and their CEO was made to step down. They are motivated to reclaim trust.

Whichever way it goes they look to be moving quickly. They assembled a specialist team for Letby’s case last year in anticipation of an application. That’s very unusual. Not sure it ever happened before tbh. The instant they received the application this week they announced that they had opened their review of the case.

Doubt it'll get to an appeal court.
There needs to be new evidence and as lee shoo said himself he put his "new evidence" (went as an expert witness) to her last appeal but it was dismissed; rightly so. He's only just recently updated his paper that was used in only 2 death not all them; bit odd he only updated it after finding out it was used in that bitches trial!
Also her defence should of called him as it was his paper but they didn't which was rightly pointed out by the appeal board. Also she wasn't convicted on medical evidence alone- along with her notes of I DID IT I'M EVIL etc... all the handover notes/hospital documents she stole, her texts & comments to colleagues, her refusal to follow senior staffs orders of staying in other nurseries but sneaking into other nurseries. Admitting in court the insulin was deliberately injected "but it wasn't her who did it" seen by a mother with her hands in the cot & the baby bleeding. The babies dying on special occasions (the day they should have gone home, dying on their due date, dying on their 100th day etc.) searching the poor babies families on FB, writing a sympathy card for the triplets but the 3rd she didn't manage to get to because after the babies sibling's had been killed by that bitch the baby was moved to a different hospital.

She's one sick bitch and I won't write what I think of her supporter's because I'll get banned!

There is new evidence. There are new academic papers on insulin in premature babies. There is Lee's updated study in on air embolism, not available to either trial or appeal court and published only in December 2024. There is evidence of the CPS illegally interfering with the police case, leaked in 2024. There is evidence of specific pathogens on the ward, leaked in 2024. There is evidence that Jayaram misled the coroner, from Thirlwall in 2024. There is evidence that Jayaram mislead the court, from Thirlwall in 2024. There is evidence that Evans was an unreliable expert witness, from his own emails to media in 2024. There is more.

But McDonald has indicated that one approach is to argue that Evans was an unfit and incompetent expert witness, and that doesn't require new evidence as most people understand it anyway. Obviously there is lots of evidence on that point in the panel report and Evans's interactions with media.

Lee had no particular reason to update that particular article before he became aware that it was being misused in Letby's case. It's not a deadly secret or sinister coincidence that he updated it in light of her case. Updating it - in reality, building on it - with all cases since 1989 is an obvious need to make his argument bullet proof. This is responsible scientific practice.

You have exaggerated or misremembered all of that list of more trivial "evidence". It doesn't matter though. You can't have a murder trial without murders. How could Letby be tried for murder on the basis of notes and searches and special dates and all that if babies died naturally? Not possible.

@Oftenaddled
But just because 14 apparent world experts said natural causes (although in the actual trial they went through every single death separately) and dismissed anything natural about them (10 month trial) these so called professionals will have to try a bit harder than "we are the experts" so everyone must believe us even though we aren't privy to everything that was presented in court!
They knocked up that press conference & this new updated paper & that panel in no time at all. There's absolutely no way they've gone through everything in that time; even the verdict was a 55 page document ffs.
I hope she stays exactly where she is and rots evil nasty horrible bitch!

Unless you’re the new CEO of the CCRC it doesn’t matter whether or not you “doubt it”

Without getting into the fact that the appeal courts have rejected applications to appeal from every miscarriage of justice ever, it’s arrogant as hell to say “rightly so” about the appeal court explaining (badly) Dr Lee’s own research to him. Are you a medical expert? Dr Lee is. His credentials make Dewi Evans look like a slack jawed hobbyist. You miss the fact that this scare quotes “expert” you’re maligning had his research paper relied upon by the prosecution. It contained their only diagnostic ‘proof’ of air embolisms. Without his paper they have zero proof of air embolisms.

This creates a problem for you - is Dr Lee an unreliable scare quotes “expert”? Then clearly his paper isn’t reliable and air embolism wasn’t proven in any of the cases. Did the prosecution really not research him at all before they relied on his work to prove these murders in court? What else did they get wrong? Regardless, this position removes his work from the body of evidence used to convict, fatally undermining the safety of the convictions. That will very likely trigger a retrial at the least, if not an exoneration outright like what happened to Sally Clarke.

Or he is a reliable expert and his evidence is valuable in which case an appeal must now be granted, given that Lee has proven that the only diagnostic element of intravenous air embolisms presented in the trials is not actually ever a feature of intravenous air embolism. So, which is it? Good expert? Or bad expert? Can’t have it both ways.

The rest of your comment is, to be frank, silly true crime fan nonsense that’s neither here nor there. Particularly now that it’s been established that there most likely were no murders to begin with.

The truth is that you are not morally superior to us. It is not at all morally superior to close your ears and go lalalallala because you simply like having a witch to burn when there is extremely good reason to listen and show some humility. It’s okay though. What you think really doesn’t matter. It’s happening anyway. I’m sure you’ll find another outlet for this anger you seem to be experiencing.

Why do you think the experts weren't privy to everything that was presented in court?

They're working with the defence team. The defence team will have full transcripts and all materials presented at court.

This is an invented problem. Your facts are wrong.

Nobody without an agenda to undermine their work would deny that the people who presented at Shoo Lee's panel are experts and professionals. They provided their roles and biographies. Have you read them?

People of this calibre get through 55 pages as a light snack. They will have efficient and effective administrative support and research assistants, like the most eminent professors and research leaders around the world. They will have reviewed complex medical case notes as their bread and butter throughout their careers. If their speed on these cases were suspicious, medical science would still be stuck at about 1950. You aren't judging objectively, just flinging mud without knowledge.

@Kittybythelighthouse can I just thank you for the wonderful clarity and logic of your posts. They are a great antidote to the frankly terrifying righteous certainty of posters who don’t want to open a process to see whether justice really has been done or whether there is another explanation.

Again, the desperate reach to malign legitimate world leading experts 🙄 Please show me, with references and evidence, on what grounds you do so? What exactly is it about their credentials that doesn’t impress you? Can you show me how their credentials are not as good as Dewi Evans? I’ll be extremely impressed if you can because that would make you more of a conjurer than he is.

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

Professor Eric Eichenwald
Professor of Paediatrics at Paramount school of medicine at University of
Pennsylvania
Chief of the Division of Neonatology at the Childrens' Hospital of Philadelphia
Holder of the Thomas Friedrich McNair
Scott endowed chair

Professor Helmut Humler
Senior medical director of the European Foundation for care of newborn infants in Germany
Formerly Head of Neonatology at University of Olm and Olm Hospital

Professor Joann Langley
Professor in department of Paediatrics of Community Health and
Epidemiology at Dalhousie University,
Canada
Holder of Canadian Institute of Health research Glaxo-Smithcline chair in
Paediatric Vaccinology
Head of Division of Paediatric Diseases at IWK Health Centre in Halifax Canada

Professor Nina Modi
Professor of Neonatal Medicine at Imperial College, London
Honorary Consultant to Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust
President of European Association of Perinatal Medicine
Former President of Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in UK

Professor Michael Norman
Professor and Senior Physician at Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology at Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Chairman of the Swedish Neonatal
Quality Register
Founder of the International Society of Evidence based Neonatology
Formerly Head of Division of Neonatology at Karolinska Institute

Professor Tatsuma Isiyama
Head of Division of Neonatology at National Centre for Child Health and Development in Tokyo, Japan
Director of the Asian Neonatal Network

Professor Bruno Pieboeuf
Professor Titular de Pediatry at
Universitaire Laval, CanadaCoordinateur de Services Clinique de Rui de Universitaire LavalDirecteur de Affaires Universitaire Ministeur de la Sante et de Services Sociale De Quebec.

Dr Shoo Lee alone has published 400+ peer reviewed articles and is regularly invited to universities and high level symposiums to speak.

Dewi Evans is, frankly, a joke in comparison.

Fact check:

1. the expert panel had access to all of the evidence. Every single thing. The prosecution did not see anything these people haven’t seen. Not a sliver.
2. How long do you think they should take? They’ve been at it since the appeal was rejected. That’s quite a bit of time. Dewi Evans says he diagnosed murder within “ten minutes of looking at notes over a coffee”. It’s always one rule for thee, one rule for me with you lot, isn’t it?
3. Using emotive language like “nasty evil horrible bitch!” is doing nothing for you, or anyone else, besides lowering the tone and making you look a bit nasty yourself.

Your tactics are not working on anyone with an ounce of good sense. They certainly won’t work on those who have the power to order or grant an appeal.

Thank you 🙏🏻

The new updated paper is necessary but not complex.

Lee wrote it with a co-author (and it's a sign that he's not an egomaniac or in this for the publicity that that co-author's name is listed first. Often the most senior partner puts their own name first since the order is significant in academia. Putting an associate researcher first shows integrity, especially since this paper will probably be cited in medicolegal history forever).

A paper on that scale would not take two authors long. Clinical researchers might publish 30 a year.

The weird, aggressive, dripping with bias, shouty tone of those who would attempt to shut down public discourse around this case does nothing but preach to fellow ‘guilty’ hardliners. Anyone reasonable or balanced is not going to be convinced by shouty mean girl attempts to shut people up. It’s just a massive red flag that makes people want to question more, not less. It isn’t winning hearts, minds, or even the argument.

Nothing sent me on the pipeline from “I am sure she must be guilty, but I suppose I’ll have a look at the comments under this article” to “This case definitely needs to be looked at and these people are unhinged” than the transparently biased, unnecessarily aggressive, screamy tantrums of the hardliner “She’s guilty because I want her to be! And “You just love babies being murdered!!” folks.

We should all be interested in a potential miscarriage of justice of this scale. It affects all of us because the integrity and rigour of British justice affects all of us (Britons). That stands even if you’re sure she’s guilty and even if she IS guilty. It is of extreme importance either way that the convictions are made safe, or expunged, because the alternative means we allow the police and judiciary to charge, try, and convict, any British citizen (that includes us, our children, our partners) based on rickety af evidence. It’s also important because of what it reveals about the state of the NHS, which we rely on for our lives and those of our kids. Covering those systemic failings with a unicorn serial killer (I mean rare, not someone who kills 🦄) will do nothing to address the root cause and as a result more babies will die unnecessarily.

This is important and very serious. Stop screaming nasty words at us and either engage honestly and like a grownup or go somewhere else where you might be more comfortable. Whatever you do, please try to be use some perspective. We don’t all have to agree, but we should aim to get along. Please try to be respectful and grown up about this if you’re going to engage. We have a perfectly valid right to have this discussion.

Just popping in to say bravo @Kittybythelighthouse for a well reasoned thread to keep this in the spotlight.

I have many reasons, some extremely personal, for becoming invested in this case, and held off from looking at it until after the trial in any depth, because I have worked hard to control paranoia and bias based on my own experiences - not in relation to death and not in the criminal arena, but close enough, and pertinent to the use / misuse of medical evidence.

Since I heard the phrase "force of a car crash" bandied about in relation to the liver injury, which gave me particularly nasty flashbacks, I've come to realise all over again that this kind of scenario is still not uncommon, and sometimes, for whatever reason, usually because you've become collateral damage in a cluster fuck not of your making, they really are out to get you.

Because you are right. This case shines a very bright light on the failings and corruption within two cornerstones of the UK system- the NHS and the judiciary.

Post Covid especially, faith in authority of any kind is at an all time low.

If this isn't handled correctly the fallout is going to put more nails in institutional coffins than are stocked at B&Q.

This kind of thing goes on every day, on a much smaller scale. People's lives are turned upside down and inside out on "the balance of probabilities" with virtually no resources to fight for themselves and their children. Legal aid has been decimated, and dogma in some areas of medicine have been entrenched by circular reasoning for at least half a century if not longer.

So yes, it could happen to anyone. Anyone can be "that unlucky". Sometimes there is no fire, but people like to start one, for many complex reasons, because humans, and life, are complex and messy.

So I really hope this case gets the examination it deserves.

Ofgs op people are allowed to align themselves with the original verdict if they so wish

Your condescending tone will also not influence any outcome for Letby either!

No one objects to anyone aligning themselves with the original verdict. PP have gone far beyond that, refusing to even consider the possibility of new evidence and/or a miscarriage of justice, and declaring that anyone ago thinks otherwise is vile and pro-baby murder.

Can you point to where I said people couldn’t align with the og verdict? I just asked people to be civil and respectful. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.