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.

Goodness those babies were critically unwell.

One would think, in this age of advanced technology, that on seeing these mysterious never seen before rashes, it would be standard practise to photograph them and ask for further opinion as it might well inform care.

In terms of other evidence, again technology could be one's friend. An argument often used by experts in my experience is that because it is unethical to test live babies, which of course it is, there is a paucity of evidence in medical literature around more esoteric conditions and occurrences. However, computer modelling has existed for a long time now and becomes more sophisticated by the day.

How hard would it have been to virtually recreate forcing air into an NG tube, getting data of volume and pressure and correlating it with Lucy's presence on the ward - would it be feasible for her to have done it in the alleged time frames? or hypothesise the feasibility of liver impact injury?

I'm not the biggest fan, nor completely trusting of technology, but by the same score, if tools are available why not use them? It might have cleared up so many of the improbable sounding scenarios.

Just a thought, but maybe I do watch too much science fiction.

Dr Evans is, quite simply, a narcissist dripping with malevolent self interest. He’s a liar, a grifter, and an obvious charlatan. He isn’t qualified to cast aspersions on Dr Lee like this. He would be a joke if he wasn’t so dangerous. I don’t know how anyone takes him seriously tbh.

I couldn’t agree more. It’s in everyone’s interests that this is put right one way or the other.

Is this now our measure for whether or not the courts should consider new evidence? Experts offering new evidence have to have worked with the accused? They have to have been at the trial? Do you not see how ridiculous that is? As to whether or not this is new evidence, the CCRC will decide that. Your opinion that the new medical reports are just opinions is, ironically, just an opinion.

I actually forgot to include one of the more striking pieces of Letby related news last week - a major whistleblowing charity refused to work with the consultants in the Letby case because of “red flags” in their testimony.

“Eileen Chubb, who founded Compassion in Care in 2003 and was one of the ‘Bupa7’, the first group to use whistleblowing law in the UK, said: “There were a number of red flags.
“We’d never come across a whistleblower who, if backed into a corner by an employer or the NHS, hadn’t dialled 999 when people’s lives had been at risk.
“That’s what we found staggering. It stood out like a sore thumb, especially in a case where there were such serious concerns. I’ve never seen a whistleblower who thought babies were being harmed who left it for more than a week. But in this case, they left it for a number of years.“

When I learned that Dr Jayaram alleged having caught Letby “virtually red handed” in the act of attempting to murder a baby after having already suspected her to be a murderess for months, but did absolutely nothing about it I smelled a rat. He saw this astonishing thing, but went back up to his office and allowed her to finish her shift unsupervised? He didn’t make a note of it at the time, even privately? He didn’t tell a soul? He, instead, continued to engage in a battle of emails with management for about a year?! While she continued to stalk the ward killing and harming babies at will?! Are you kidding me?!!

It’s patently ridiculous. He changed his story about this moment three times over the years. His account disagreed with nurse Williams, the only other witness. The judge said it came down to whether or not they believed him. His testimony was the only evidence against her in the baby k case (she was convicted). This was always an absolutely bullshit story.

No paywall link: archive.ph/vStFU

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/01/lucy-letby-whistleblowers-red-flags-charity-testimony/

It would be pretty inappropriate to have anyone who worked with Letby review the medical notes for the trial. In fact it would almost certainly not be allowed. This is a feature of the legal system, not a bug.

There were 117 cases of neonatal vascular air embolism, with a mean gestational age of 30.4 weeks (range: 23-40), mean birth weight of 1,422 g (range 830-3,844), and median age of occurrence of 2 days (range: 1-540) after birth. The majority were preterm (75.2%), male (62.7%), on assisted respiratory support (90.5%), and had air leak syndrome (52.9%). The most common clinical presentation was sudden acute clinical deterioration, sometimes accompanied by crying, cardiac rhythm abnormalities, skin discoloration, and a decrease in end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration.

@Kittybythelighthouse

This states skin discolouration was present

Funny enough, they have more information on what everyone said at trial than anyone who sat through it, including the jury.

This is because, unless you are capable of remembering every day's proceedings word for word, for over 100 days, you are better off with the official transcript. McDonald of course has that resource to share with them.

It's not new evidence. Its different opinions. That's why appeals were refused. Sigh.

His conclusion is that discolouration is only ever present in arterial air embolism, not ever in intravenous air embolism. That’s the point of the new paper, it distinguishes between the two. Intravenous air embolism is what is alleged.

There has never been any talk of murder charges at Liverpool - just a literally impossible and garbled statistic about tubes dislodging (as they do) while she was on the premises and with no further connection.

The police have had their "audit" of her shifts - only hers, because that's how they ran the investigation at Liverpool - for almost eight years now. They obviously have no case at all there, and after warnings from professional statisticians, the Thirlwall Enquiry decided not to produce the further details on this they promised.

That's wrong.

New academic research is new evidence. The expert reports draw on precisely that. That's how Sally Clark was released.

But it bears repeating that new evidence is not the only ground to refer a case back to the High Court

Fgs. Are you the new CEO of the CCRC? Are you a medical expert? The new reports didn’t exist at the appeals. These are highly regarded world leading experts. There is precedent for new expert reports being submitted as new evidence, so what’s your basis for stating so decisively that they won’t be here? Have you got a crystal ball as well as an unearned superior tone?

Sigh.

There is a biochemical engineer on the new expert panel who does this kind of thing - so far I know he has worked on the insulin claims (and demolished them).

The behaviour of the consultants never made any sense to me. It's staggering that they are seen as the heroes and that all the blame seems to be falling on management. If they genuinely suspected that Lucy was harming babies and they accept the guilty verdict then they must also accept some (a lot of) responsibility for what happened. Emailing management is not appropriate action to take in such circumstances. I was waiting for them to explain their behaviour when they were questioned in the Thirlwall Inquiry, their lack of action, their refusal to share the evidence they claimed to have against her... but they didn't.

I listened to the podcast during the retrial and thought there was no way they could convict. There was no evidence other than the hunch of Jayaram who didn't really see anything at all, and didn't do anything about what he didn't see. If it wasn't for her previous convictions, that case would never have made it to court. If it wasn't for the prosecution repeatedly referring to her as "convicted child killer Lucy Letby" she would never have been convicted of that supposed crime. I suspect there was at least one of the "burn the witch" contingent on that jury and that they had made their minds up about the verdict before the case even started.

As a nurse I find it frightening. That a nurse can be convicted of murder based on the word of a doctor who can't even stick to the same story. Who bases his accusations on barely anything more that a bad feeling. Who is contradicted by another nurse... One thing this case has taught me is not to have any faith in our so called justice system!

Would you encourage your daughters to become nurses?

statistically they are more likely as a nurses to be found a serial killer https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/News/2022/Report_Healthcare_serial_killer_or_coincidence_statistical_issues_in_investigation_of_suspected_medical_misconduct_Sept_2022_FINAL.pdf

It’s both actually. New evidence and new opinions. The evidence was presented since the appeal was refused, so it has no gone to the CCRC who may refer it back to appeal.

The Appeal Court is in the embarrassing position of having relied on evidence that has now been disproved scientifically.

The research is relying on data of 6m/2f and their presentation during IV embolism

The data and were it came from in regards to those babies is not apparent

I assume from case notes? Those particular 8 cases are possibly going to be highly relevant

There was some discolouration as evidenced by his chart

Shoo content to take those cases and declare they are fact - be keen to know if he was present and how accurate case notes were if he wasn’t

I agree and second this!

The data came from the cases referenced in the paper. There are citations. There is a literature list. This is how case reviews work.

Agree!

Yes, there was a different type of discoloration as Lee makes very clear.

Scientists do not rely on witnessing events to gather data. A witness provides a scientific report for use of other scientists, with sharing of source and reasoning according to agreed protocols. That is the scientific method, and if you are going to decide it can't apply to Letby, you'd better give up hope for all existing diagnoses and treatments and for all future medical research.

@dragonfliesandbees thing is the consultants were managers themselves! Dr Brearey was Head of Unit. Dr Jayaram was the ward manager. It’s pathetic to claim that they were “too scared” of other managers to report suspicions about a literal serial killer to police. A child would know to do this. In fact, they didn’t even report most of these supposedly “unexplainable deaths” to the coroner at the time, which is a legal duty. Why didn’t they? Either the deaths were suspicious or they weren’t. Can’t have it both ways.

Same goes for Brearey’s ‘Drawer of Doom’ supposedly full of damning evidence which he refused to share with the other managers but still insisted that they had to get rid of Letby. They weren’t demanding that police be brought in now either. They’d, apparently, have been perfectly happy to have this serial killer of babies simply sent away to another hospital. They finally called the police a year later once they lost their dispute with Letby and were asked to apologise to her. Do they think we live in an alternate reality? Fgs.

What’s the point of Thirlwall given all this? We already have anonymised processes to protect NHS staff when reporting harm. They chose not to use them and send endless emails for a year instead. What Brearey wanted, demanded actually, was the power to have any nurse fired no questions asked and no proof supplied. An obvious nonsense that can’t be actioned going forward.

I’m not surprised you’re affected by this, as a nurse. Nurses are entitled collectively to be very pissed off. It illustrates very well how the dancing nurses of the olympic opening ceremony in 2012 and all the clapping for the NHS really was just bread and circuses. It’ll have a poor effect on recruitment figures for neonatal nurses going forward I have no doubt. What a tragic bloody farce it all is.

Dr Lee’s report cites 10 accidental cases of neonate venous air embolism with a 70% mortality rate.

Only 2 babies showed generalised skin changes and none showed localised skin discolouration (which was key to prosecution case).