Lucy Letby not charged with further crimes - what does this say about her current convictions

[mids2019]

So no more charges for Lucy Letby currently.

I can't say I am surprised as the tactics the CPS used the first time to secure convictions wont wash. There have been too many questions about the 'expert' evidence in the first trial and in my opinion the CPS don't want to take the risk of trying again with a more possibly more aware jury.

The police seem to be not too happy and probably thought they had similar evidence as they had initially so were taken aback by the CPS decision. They have had to approach parents to say that their children dies either through medical incompetence or through natural causes. The poor parents will now feel distraught and confused being lef up the garden path and the police maybe telling them Lucy was guilty.

I wonder if this is paving the way for a retrial?

Agreed, but I would say that even before DE became involved the police made a serious mistake in allowing the pediatricians who worked on the same ward as Lucy Letby to select the cases for investigation. And they continued to do this over the following years.

If murders were suspected, everyone who worked on the ward should have been treated as a potential suspect - they shouldn't have been granting some of them special status, as if they were co-investigators.

This was especially wrong when two of them were managers and were managing potential witnesses. The police should have arranged for an independent investigation instead of leaning on the consultants. And they should have realized that the consultants were interested parties who might be in denial about, or even trying to conceal, failings in care.

I don't understand how they ever thought it was appropriate to run an investigation this way. Did they seriously never think that negligence or medical error might explain deaths on a hospital ward?

Is this documentary available now?

It could partly be the fact we have social media and can discuss cases now in a way that just wasn't possible years ago. Maybe in the pub, maybe a letter to your MP or the paper, but otherwise what could you do?

The Post Office sub-postmasters would still have no justice if we didn't have the internet. Well they still don't but at least we know they were badly treated and there has been some progress.

4th Feb

Did Shipman, Allit, and the others have dozens of highly regarded medical specialists publicly speak out in their defense?

I imagine that's the difference, along with the fact that it became quickly apparent that the medical expert employed to assist police was at best incompetent.

I would assume that's what's different about these charges. Now that DE has made himself toxic, the CPS doesn't have a medical expert willing to work backwards from murder and manipulate and misinterpret evidence to fit their case.

Then some middle aged male journalists start saying they think she’s a victim

could it be that it was Private eye

who also wrote bout the post office scandal before it was a scandle

and that is why people sat up and listened to what they had to say?

It's out on February 4th

I'm not sure where it says whether Lucy was present or not? That inquiry is investigating how she could've been stopped sooner-her guilt isn't even in question. I'm sure they would've noticed if she wasn't even present for so many of the deaths.

It's largely irrelevant anyway-2-3 deaths would be expected on the unit a year, it's not the number of deaths (as Evans has said over and over) it's the suspicious sudden nature of them involving one nurse. Besides, the managers (who were on her side) already wrote long before the investigation about the presence of one nurse at all/most of the deaths. So we KNOW she was. Shouldn't even be in dispute.

Anyone who has read much about the case probably sick of hearing this, but it remains true: rare events like being present for 10 out of 13 deaths without causing them are unlikely to happen to a specific individual but will happen to a small number of individuals.

I don't think you can maths your way out of her guilt tbh.

Those cases happened 20-30 years ago. If it happened in this day and age we'd probably have the same thing with experts wanting a name for themselves and people doubting their guilt because they weren't caught red-handed and people are obsessed with conspiracy theories. It's already happening with the Menendez brothers, and Jeremy Bamber-people get caught up in it and are convinced they're innocent.

It is not Dewi Evans fault she didn't even call ANY expert witnesses. Maybe focus on why that was and stop blaming Evans for everything. If she had a decent defence it wouldn't matter what DE or the prosecution did. He wasn't the only prosecution expert anyway.

There are other explanations for the rise in deaths that are far more plausible and statistically likely than murder, especially when you consider all these things were happening at once.

Infant mortality rate rose across England in the same year as the deaths started in Chester hospital. The hospital also treated more babies than ever before; they had a lower average birth weight and more complex needs than before. There was a chronic shortage of staff on the unit, along with all the things pointed out in Lee's report, such as the plumbing not working properly, a lack of senior staff, and the cramped conditions in the unit, making infection control harder.

The unit was downgraded at the same time as Lucy being removed, and was no longer allowed to take in such poorly babies, which is why the spike then stopped. Also, 35 deaths or collapses were left off the rota evidence and not investigated because Lucy was not on shift.

Sorry - you need to cross refer with this one:

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/evidence/inq0010072-sheet-1-of-report-from-the-countess-of-chester-hospital-mapping-staff-members-on-duty/

The sudden nature of the deaths was partly a retrospective artefact. There was one sudden collapse in baby A, and deteriorations followed by deaths in the others. Obviously, such events need medical review, and they have been reviewed: before and since the trial, by qualified experts who could explain each turn of events, and the systemic problems with the hospital that contributed to the cluster of deaths.

You certainly can't "math" your way into proving someone not guilty, but without any actual murders, you can't "math" your way into blaming a chosen suspect either.

The potential rationale for Letby not calling any defence witnesses has already been speculated about at great length, both by people who have some idea about legal tactics and who don't. Given that there are multiple possible explanations and none of us know, focusing on that is not going to do anything other than provide more opportunities for Dunning Kruger and strawmanning.

It's largely irrelevant anyway-2-3 deaths would be expected on the unit a year, it's not the number of deaths (as Evans has said over and over) it's the suspicious sudden nature of them involving one nurse.

Yes but you can't say "this nurse is guilty let's look at all the babies who died in her care"

You have to, or you should!, start from ALL the babies who died and look for common denominators.

I don't think anyone thinks the Menendez brothers are innocent - I'm vaguely aware of discussion about pardoning them. As for Jeremy Bamber, there has always been controversy about his conviction. It's not a recent thing.

You seem to be arguing that because you can identify a few cases where there has been minimal controversy, people are wrong to be concerned about Lucy Letby?

Not every conviction is a miscarriage of justice, but sadly, many are. They are not a recent invention. You can read about them as far back as the Old Testament. At this University of Exeter link you can read about 400 cases in the UK alone.

The Bamber judgement has been questioned from day one. It was a majority verdict, not unanimous. So the first people to question it were those jury members who said he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. His sister was schizophrenic. The latest update I can find is that 6 points of 10 which were last presented as the basis for an appeal are currently still being considered, and 4 rejected.

Apparently many cases are being reviewed in greater detail following Andrew Malkin's unjustifiably delayed release. Which was an outrageous denial of justice based on the flimsiest of incorrect witness ID evidence, compounded by multiple official refusals to put it right.

That's literally what they did though. The consultants exhausted all possible other explanations. The police exhausted all possible explanations.

She WAS the only common denominator!

No they didn't. They didn't consider all the babies who died in that unit, they considered the ones who died while she was on shift and then looked for ways they might have died that would mean she murdered them.

Do you accept that there are serious doubts by neonatal experts about whether any of those babies were actually murdered?

The consultants and hospital management ordered investigations into many of the deaths long before Letby was ever suspected; some were investigated twice because of the spike in deaths. All but one of the deaths were determined to be natural causes. One was classified as unexplained, which is not the same as murder. My DH's death was classed as unexplained; there was never any suspicion of foul play.

Murder was only ever brought up after DE became involved.

The external pathologist and neonatologists hired to review deaths on the unit before Letby's trial; the pathologists who originally certified all deaths as natural; and the two panels of experts who have examined the medical records since 2023 all found it perfectly possible to explain the deaths.

Nobody ever exhausted all other routes. Evans was just willing to ignore them - or not qualified to spot them.

@Oftenaddled are you forgetting Dr Bohin and the other Dr who said the baby with the liver injury was like that of a car crash? Why are people acting like DE was the only expert anyone used?

Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC asked the consultant: “How does that injury come to be in a child of (Child O’s) age?”
Dr Marnerides, who practises at London’s St Thomas’ Hospital, said: “The distribution, the pattern and the appearance of the bruising indicates towards impact-type injury. I’m fairly confident this is impact-type injury.”
He explained the photograph showed “extensive haemorrhaging into the liver”, which he had only seen previously in a road traffic collision and in non-accidental assaults from parents or carers.

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-03-29/baby-suffered-liver-injury-akin-to-road-traffic-collision-lucy-letby-trial-told

No one has adequately explained the liver injury to that baby naturally. Why has this expert not seen an injury like that anywhere else but in a car accident or deliberate harm by parents or carers? Must just be one of those million to one crazy situations that happens only around LL again?

No one has adequate explained the liver injury to that baby naturally.

It would appear that some MN users are woefully short of Google skills. This is the response to a Google query about that liver damage.

In the case of Lucy Letby, specifically concerning Child O (one of triplet boys who died in June 2016), the prosecution argued that Letby caused his death by injecting air into his bloodstream and causing "trauma" to his liver, which resulted in a "remarkable deterioration".
Here are the key details regarding the liver injury allegations and subsequent challenges:
Prosecution Case at Trial (2023)

• "Impact-type" Injuries: A prosecution pathologist described the liver injury found in a post-mortem examination of Baby O as similar to injuries seen in a road traffic collision or severe blunt-force trauma.
• Cause of Collapse: Dr. Dewi Evans, the expert for the prosecution, testified that the bleeding in the liver was responsible for the child's collapse.
• Ruling out CPR: Dr. Evans ruled out that the injuries were caused by resuscitation (CPR) efforts, stating that chest compressions do not typically cause such damage to the liver.
• Internal Bleeding: The court was told that Baby O had significant blood in his abdomen, indicating a severe internal injury.

Defence and Expert Challenges (Post-Trial)
Following the conviction, new experts working with Letby’s legal team have offered alternative explanations for the liver injuries:

• Medical Blunder Claim: A panel of experts supporting Letby’s appeal, including Dr. Richard Taylor, has claimed that the liver injury was actually caused by a needle inserted in the wrong place during a "chaotic" resuscitation attempt.
• Accidental Puncture: They argue that high-pressure ventilation during the attempt to save the baby pushed the liver down, leading to a doctor accidentally puncturing the organ.
• Birth Trauma: Another theory suggested by a panel expert, Prof. Neena Modi, is that the injury was the result of a traumatic delivery.

Controversy Over Findings

• Conflicting Pathological Views: A pathologist who reviewed the notes for the BBC (but was not part of the original trial) indicated that it was "unlikely" the liver injuries were caused by impact, as the prosecution claimed.
• Conflicting Expert Consensus: While some experts argue the liver was punctured by a needle, others—including the original pathologist—maintain there was no evidence of a needle injury during the post-mortem and that the injuries do not fit that explanation.
• Alternative View on Trauma: Other independent experts have suggested the injury could have been a spontaneous liver rupture, or, as argued by Dr. Mike Hall (another expert), that the "birth trauma" theory is not supported by the evidence of how the baby was delivered.

The case regarding whether the liver injury was inflicted or a result of, or exacerbated by, medical intervention is central to the ongoing legal challenges and the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

I'm not forgetting, no. But as Evans and Cheshire Constabulary have confirmed, the other expert witnesses for the prosecution were given his notes to work from. They didn't go in blind.

Baby O is a special case of course because details of his deterioration and treatment weren't disclosed to the defence team, which is one of the grounds for Lucy Letby's application to the CCRC. I presume that means these notes also weren't passed to the expert witnesses for the prosecution - that would be a bit blatant!

So I'm more inclined to attend to the explanations of baby O's condition from medical experts who have seen his full notes.

The senior coroner who originally handled baby O's post-mortem said the pathologist did not note any bruising to baby O's liver, but did note bleeding from a small rupture that he put down to prematurity.

It was never disclosed to the coroner's office that one of the consultants carried out a procedure involving putting a needle into baby O's stomach to relieve gas. She believes if that had been disclosed to them at the time, a medical negligence case would have been opened.

Blunt force trauma was first mentioned by the prosecution.

Bear in mind that the pathologist and the coroner had direct access to baby O. The prosecution did not.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/14/former-senior-coroners-officer-says-lucy-letby-has-suffered-miscarriage-of-justice

The external neonatologist and pathologist hired by the hospital in 2016, before the police investigation opened, explained this death, of baby O, as likely caused by failings in care.

The coroner had agreed he would conduct a coroner's inquest if their reports showed anything noteworthy. Some of the information on this death had been withheld at postmortem by the consultants involved.

However, once the police investigation opened, the coroner's inquest was suspended. Without this sequence of events, it's likely that the problems with this child's treatment would have been public knowledge sooner, since the coroner already had the information which had been withheld at postmortem, and had asked for the full copies of the external reports.

So when you say nobody explained this: prior to the trial, they simply weren't given the information (postmortem) or opportunity (coroner's inquest). Of course, experts reviewing the case since the trial have also been able to explain the death, through natural causes and failings in care, not murder.

It's an excellent example of how this unit failed to acknowledge its limitations and failings and witnessed a cluster of unexpected (to its own staff) deaths.

@Imdunfer it's been debunked. But pro-Letbyers sure do jump at the chance for one of the consultants to be responsible. There is zero evidence of birth injury and the baby already had trauma to the liver before any of the doctors were working on him (obviously as they wouldn't need to do CPR if there wasn't a collapse in the first place) just goes to show you can say anything when you're not in court being challenged on it and people will lap it up just because it confirms their innocence bias 🙄