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.

P.s I’m not trying to influence any outcome. I’m relieved at the direction it’s going and all I have to do is wait for the (now fairly predictable) outcome. The Overton window of public opinion has not just shifted but emigrated at this point.

On the subject of due process and justice in general, for a little light relief I'm watching a thing on Netflix called "The Capture". It's a glossy spook romp and has no direct bearing on Lucy Letbys case, except it is illustrative of the lengths some will go to in the quest for what they believe is the greater good.

It does call into question the use and manipulation of data and evidence if the ends is believed to justify the means. In this ever more sophisticated technological age, one would hope what is portrayed in this series remains in the realm of fiction. But with megalomaniacs, tech bros and trillionaires currently drunk on so much power, and the increasing instability in the world, I think it pays to keep a watchful eye.

Totally agree and thank you @Kittybythelighthouse for such an informative thread.

I believe so. Well i think there was contact, but only after the baby had deteriorated and after that X-ray. So she can’t have been the cause of anything found on the X-ray which is what seemed to be said.

Whenever I’ve seen skin discolouration/mottling it’s been infection related. However the doctors all spoke about a a strange rash they hadn’t seen before so it can’t be the normal run of the mill infection rash. So no idea.

Also Dr Shoo Lee is working pro bono, including paying for his own flights and accommodation.

He also stated that he would look at the evidence and report on anything he found either for or against guilt.

We can be certain that Dr Lee is bona fide. Of that there's no doubt.

So this new paper that he has produced means that he has new clinical evidence of witnessing air embolism in preemies

He is saying now that skin would not show any sort of change?

Can anyone link to the new paper?

Dr Evans said: “Lee’s questions are easy to answer, but I’m not very keen on participating in ‘appeal via press conference’.
“It’s not how scientific and clinical research is presented. And it’s not how the formal legal process functions.”
Dr Evans claimed he had identified “several problems” in the care of the babies, which were “all disclosed in my reports and evidence”.
He added: “I disagree with Lee’s assertion that I was ‘selective’. Quite the contrary. This is why I asked to review all the deaths and collapses from 2015 and 2016, not just the ’suspicious’ or ‘unexpected’ ones, or the ones where Letby was on duty.

“That’s why I told the police that if they had a ’suspect’, I didn’t want to know. I only heard about Letby in July 2018, when she was arrested for the first time.
“I identified malfeasance because the evidence pointed to it.”

Here's what they said about each case discussed, just to keep it all in one place:

Baby A/1 : cause of death thrombosis with clot entering brain stem:

"Zhou and Lee reported no patchy skin discolorations in infants with IV injection of air [what the prosecution claimed Letby did]. Patchy skin discolorations are caused by dilation and contraction of small blood vessels in the skin in response to hypoxia, which can occur in many conditions".

Baby D/4

"She developed prolonged coagulation times, which indicate the infection was going out
of control and causing early disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). DIC causes coagulation in the blood vessels, coagulation defect and bleeding. Coagulation defects do not occur with air embolism. The
patchy skin discolorations were caused by DIC causing clotting in the small blood vessels of the skin which compromised blood flow, which together with hypoxia, triggered dilation and contraction of small
blood vessels in the skin, resulting in patches of skin discoloration, purpuric patches and tracking lesions".

Baby O/15

"High pressure ventilation decreased venous
return to the heart and contributed to liver congestion."

"Baby 15 died from a subcapsular liver haematoma caused by traumatic delivery, resulting in haemorrhage into the peritoneal cavity, and profound shock. This was not recognised ante-mortem".

[Poor circulation and shock both cause mottling].

It's worth noting that the descriptions people gave of these rashes at the time weren't the same. That's a bit of a retrospective narrative. And Lee explained that there has never been a case of an infant with patchy skin discoloration of any sort from venous air embolism, and why. He was talking about a different type of embolism in 1989 and what Letby was accused of doing doesn't affect the skin.

They haven't released summary reports on baby M and baby B yet.

The original paper referred to in the trial was written in 1989. It did not differentiate between arterial and venous embolism. The updated paper looked at all reported case since 1989 and did differentiate. The skin discoloration was only seen in cases of arterial embolism. The babies discussed in the trial were said to have venous embolism. If they displayed the same skin discoloration it would have been a "medical first".

Sorry I don't have a link to the paper but it is one of the first things discussed at the press conference if you wanted to listen to Dr Lee's explanation.

I'd be interested to know what patchy skin decolourisation is so distinctive that it could only lead, beyond reasonable doubt, to one conclusion of murder.
Ds when small got viral rashes regularly. We were often down at A&E with them as they often were non-fading or unusual enough for the GP to want a blood check done. But he had a wide variety of different ones, from huge red/purple ones through to tiny pin pricks. But in between was the sort of hexagonal ones with tracking between them that came out so quickly you could watch them coming out, blotchy skin decolourisation in all sorts of ways, bruise like ones, ones in circle patters, ones that just covered a small area, ones that covered all over and so on.
So what was so distinctive about this one that meant it could only have one cause?

But I'm also interested in reading these threads. Because there seem to be two sets of opinions. One saying "she is definitely guilty lock her up for life" and wanting to close down any discussion. The other side wanting to look at the evidence and saying "if she is guilty, this doesn't seem to be above reasonable doubt".
Why? Why does it matter so much to some people that there isn't a relook at the case? Because it should matter to all of us that justice is done.
From what I've seen there is enough doubt on what was used as evidence to relook at the case. I don't think saying that is saying she's innocent. It's saying that I would have more faith in the British justice system if they relooked with an open mind and answered those questions. If she still is guilty after that then, actually I don't mind either way. As long as they have independently considered all the multiple questions and found that the original verdict was correct.

If someone has the faith that the original judgement was correct, then they should welcome the investigation into the questions surrounding the case, because it should then answer these doubts.

Might it be clamouring to release someone whose conviction is unsafe because, you know, it matters to absolutely everyone if our justice system is fair or not?

Also that if there was a systemic failure and cover up it needs to be exposed. Clearly whether or not LL had a hand in any of the deaths, there was a massive problem in that hospital. The medical staff were not competent, there were basic errors and a woeful lack of knowledge, a serious bacteria had not been detected and appropriate steps taken, there was sewage on the unit……

They didn't work with Letby. They weren't at the trial. There is no new evidence only opinions. Other baby deaths at other hospitals she worked at are being investigated,

That reminds me I used to work with someone who did a big adventure travel type holiday yearly. It became the running joke that wherever he went there would be some sort of unprecedented natural disaster or unexpected war during or just after his holiday. Despite researching and trying to find safe places!

Given the original charges were brought on opinions, opinions which changed and were retro-fitted to circumstance, we're well and truly down the rabbit hole here aren't we?

How do you square it away, all the incompetence, the flip flopping, this pick and mix approach to evidence, which shows clearly that the truth is secondary to other agendas.

The new panel of experts have nothing to gain, but much to lose by "supporting a baby killer". But they're not. They're supporting scientific rigour.

Are we all so back footed in the wake of growing political turmoil that we care so little for the concept of a fair trial?

The medical evidence made so little sense to scores of HCPs during the trial, and many tried to question it. As did a prominent statistician who found the police on his doorstep as a result.

Dozens of nurses online explained that sometimes a baby is observed to see if it rights itself when alarms go off, as they can be notoriously unstable. Parents of babies in NICUs have said similar. It means that these fragile scraps don't undergo invasive treatment when it might not be necessary. Yet it was framed in Lucy Letbys case as nefarious, and the doctor who observed it did nothing at the time.

And the character assassination continues. Reports of Lucy Letbys life in prison, her alleged associations etc etc.

If no murders occurred, everything else is utterly irrelevant.

Do you not think it chilling that people can spend their life in prison, or in the family courts have their children permanently removed for adoption based entirely on opinion and the balance of probabilities?

I do.

@MistressoftheDarkSide and as someone with skin in the game.

I find it more terrifying that perhaps, failings in the legal system, may lead to failings in the NHS being swept under the carpet. Blame being placed on one, evil woman, meaning proper investigation in systematic failings are not carried out. Putting more vulnerable babies at risk.

I don't want to defend a baby killer, if she is guilty then I hope she rots in jail with her guilt weighing heavily on her conscience and forever dammed in the afterlife, barred from Gods grace.

But if there is the slightest possibility she is innocent of murder, that failings in training, monitoring, systems and procedure were a cause of those poor babies deaths I want that investigated, those in charge brought to account and improvements made.

At the moment I don't feel 100% sure that vulnerable babies in NICU and PICU are safer now than they were before she was jailed.

Does anyone know what the significance of pathogens being found one the ward was? I don't know the details, but there's talk of some infection/contamination in the water system.

Have they found that babies have died from these infections? Or is it more that it's an indication of the state of the ward (and the NHS). Thank you.

You need to move on from this defence.

4 nurses who did work with LL was dissuaded from testifying for her according to DD. The panel had full access to all medical notes. They discussed details that were missed by the prosecution witnesses and were not presented to the trial.

I entirely agree. If the investigation into the institution (the hospital) has made a scapegoat of an individual rather address the institutional failings with transparency and honesty that is abhorrent.

How many times over the years have we seen someone perceived as odd in some way convicted of heinous offences? Additionally in this case, the highly emotive deaths of babies may not have been murders at all.

One thing we know for sure (from Lee’s detailed research re intravenous AE) is that it wasn’t caused by air embolism. There was pseudomonas in the sinks/taps, so presumably elsewhere also.

Only some of the babies notes at the time mentioned skin discolouration. Dr J, who is really great at uncovering memories of things not noted or mentioned at all at the time, came out with at least one memory of skin discolouration, over a year later, that wasn’t noted at the time.

Several of the babies had signs of sepsis at death. A hospital with raw sewage backing up in the sinks should have been shut down. Even Evans said this to John Sweeney - he said he hadn’t known about the pseudomonas outbreak at the time of the deaths, which seems incredible. Pseudomonas is often fatal to neonates. There was a spate of infant deaths in Belfast a few years ago caused by pseudomonas.

I think there’s limited value (and potentially a lot of harm) in non clinicians discussing medical detail, so I generally don’t go into that However, as I understand it, they didn’t look for this infection in the babies. Further, it’s very easy to miss in neonates. Sally Clarke eventually got exonerated because it was discovered that her son Harry had a bacterial infection in his spine that was missed at the time.

Evans didn't work with Letby. He didn't even work with neonates. And yet his opinions were enough to convict her. Why should we believe him over so many others?

The new paper fills in the intervening 35 years of cases since the 1989 paper. It also distinguishes between arterial and intravenous air embolism. The prosecution alleges that Letby caused intravenous air embolism via the IV line that was already in place (she could not have caused arterial air embolism because of the difficulty of doing so in neonates particularly without being seen plus no puncture wounds etc).

He found that intravenous air embolism does not present with skin discolouration of any kind. Only arterial AE does. This means the prosecution just lost the only diagnostic evidence that they had for air embolism. It’s a fatal blow. It is a peer reviewed paper published in a legitimate and respected medical journal. Some do try to say it was “paid for” with zero evidence for that. This is, simply, a conspiracy theory. It is a very good, meticulous, paper.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39730132/