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?

I don't know why everyone holds up Shoo Lee as some sort of super expert. I'd take Evans opinion over his any day.

Shoo Lee wrote the 1989 academic paper on neonatal air embolism, then Shoo Lee Dr. Lee has subsequently stated that his research was misinterpersented and missed at the trail. As it was Shoo Lees academic research and paper on "Pulmonary Vascular Air Embolism in the Newborn" focused on cases where air entered the bloodstream via high-pressure ventilation, not by direct venous injection, this is why Shoo Lee is being regarded as the expert and Dr Evans isn't

@Firefly1987
The idea that Shoo Lee would just weigh in without a care in the world saying whatever he likes is just ridiculous.

Is Dewi Evans planning on publishing any papers on his air embolism 'discoveries'? He obviously isn't seeing as he can't back it up, it's just words, if it wouldn't stand up in a medical/scientific journal then it shouldn't stand up in court.

Shoo Lee lives the other side of the world, he doesn't have to hold up criminal justice standards (or whatever the name for it is!) or care about any fallout, he can say whatever he wants.

It was the prosecutions who decided to use Mr Lees' academic research paper from across the other side of the world - why shouldn't he defend it when its been misused and misunderstood.

The idea that Shoo Lee would just weigh in without a care in the world saying whatever he likes is just ridiculous.

The fact remains that the stakes aren't as high for him and he's not had to be in court being cross examined. I'm sure the parents are hugely disappointed in him though. Look how people have treated DE-all the hate and abuse he gets! He's not going to give evidence to put a young woman away for life lightly is he. Yet that's exactly what some people think he's done.

Is Dewi Evans planning on publishing any papers on his air embolism 'discoveries'? He obviously isn't seeing as he can't back it up, it's just words, if it wouldn't stand up in a medical/scientific journal then it shouldn't stand up in court.

I hope he does. Those doctors probably saw more AEs than anyone else ever has since it's something to be avoided at all costs. Funny how Lucy was the first one to mention the risk of air embolism-trying to cover her tracks.

I'm sure the parents are hugely disappointed in him though.

why would the parents be disapointed in a professor explaining that his medical research papers have been misunderstood by the prosecution in a murder trial?

I find it strange that you assume Shoo Lee isn't willing to be cross-examined when he has

a) volunteered to be cross-examined by contributing to Lucy Letby's application to appeal her first trial

b) appeared at court proceedings for her application to appeal her first trial

c) put his name to reports which have been submitted to the CCRC as grounds for appeal, and on which he is likely to be cross examined during any retrial

Not sure what more he can do to demonstrate willingness to be cross-examined.

I do think that you and others online making the same odd unevidenced comments about him should consider whether you aren't just shooting the messenger.

Lucy Letby mentioned risk of air embolism with regard to a child who was not part of the indictment who had been left with an open line, putting them at risk of air embolism.

That is hardly sinister - ignoring the problem might have been. I'd certainly hope a nurse would raise the issue.

(This was misreported in some newspapers at being about one of the triplets, but it was not)

That's not a fact, that's something you've just decided. Of course the stakes are high for him and he's willing to go to court. Also I would imagine if I was Shoo Lee I would be devastated that my work had been misused to send a woman to prison for life, it would weigh heavily on me.

Ok well you can hope he does, but he's not going to.

Yes. A reputable journal would need proof of air embolism that went beyond what Evans has been able to offer.

'Asked by the Guardian to explain how he diagnosed air embolism when none of these experts did, from the same medical notes, Evans said he had done so independently.
“Well without being too blase about it, it’s only difficult if you don’t know the answer, OK. Once you know, you know … It’s not very good asking me why I diagnosed air embolus. I think you should be asking other people why didn’t they make the diagnosis.”

'He explained that he identified it due to rashes, air observed in some postmortems – although bodies produce air after death – and by excluding other medical causes. But he also acknowledged that air embolism is very difficult to prove:

'“Trouble is you don’t get evidence: air embolus doesn’t leave any marks, you see.”'

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/20/my-kind-of-case-intense-focus-falls-on-lucy-letby-trial-expert-witness

Lee's work started from air embolisms that had been demonstrated, as they can be, with observed mishaps or equipment failures and antemortem testing. Then he noted and compared symptoms.

Evans would only be able to speculate on the symptoms of air embolism based on this claim that he had identified air embolism from the symptoms (or vibes). This is of course circular and of no use to evidence-based science.

I don't know why everyone holds up Shoo Lee as some sort of super expert

ok well if you don’t know that you’re obviously coming from such a place of ignorance wrt the way science works that it’s not so surprising you are coming up with some weird conclusions.

Boy the media seem to get an awful lot wrong just when it happens to make Lucy look even more guilty don't they? Same as your claim someone mixed up a baby being born at Liverpool with dying there. Why should I believe your sources (if you even have any) over the others?

Re the Liverpool baby, I've said that it looks as if the media are confused on this point because they describe them as having been murdered by Lucy Letby, and none of the children she was convicted of murdering died there.

That is not a point in favour of or against any aspect of this argument about the validity of Lucy Letby's convictions. It's obvious there is confusion here - that's all. You've misrepresented me with that post.

@Oftenaddled it's a non-indictment baby who died at Liverpool.

The press reports have been contradictory on that point, stating both that Letby was convicted of killing the child and that they died in Liverpool. One or the other may be true, but not both. I suspect there's confusion with "born at Liverpool" but it really isn't important. All we know about this child is that they are going to have an inquest - which error was made doesn't change anything.

@Firefly1987 What is your source for Letby being the first to raise air embolism? Everything I have read points at that being Jayaram, including handwritten notes by Jayaram published as part of Thirlwell, where he calls air embolism a "crystal ball theory" and a statement where he discusses finding Lee's paper on the subject.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0001982_11-12.pdf

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23340244.lucy-letby-trial-doctor-tells-shock-possible-baby-deaths-cause/

@Firefly1987 What is your source for Letby being the first to raise air embolism? Everything I have read points at that being Jayaram, including handwritten notes by Jayaram published as part of Thirlwell, where he calls air embolism a "crystal ball theory" and a statement where he discusses finding Lee's paper on the subject.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0001982_11-12.pdf

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23340244.lucy-letby-trial-doctor-tells-shock-possible-baby-deaths-cause/

@Oftenaddled it changes A LOT if that comes back as unlawful killing. She was caring for the baby, they collapsed whilst she was on-transferred to LWH and died.

I'd be interested in a source for that information, since it isn't consistent with any press or legal sources I've come across.

Can you give me one, please?

Lucy Letby submitted a datix (health and safety report) at the end of June 2016 to say that a child had been left with an open port on a UVC line. She texted another nurse to say she had pointed this out because it was a risk for infection or air embolism.

This has been taken by some people who believe Lucy Letby was guilty as an effort to divert suspicion, but it's obviously a case of her fulfilling her professional duty

https://x.com/letbycampaign/status/2013258894999498928/photo/1

That doesn't suggest any of those children are having inquests, or even that charges were considered. That's just material from the consultants' original report to Chester police, designed to "pique their interest" in an investigation.

@Oftenaddled well if it's not the one mentioned there it's another one that died, which is hopefully not the case.

Thanks @Firefly1987

I think we are at cross purposes here. The reason I doubt it's a child who died at Liverpool is that press reports on the inquest have said they are for six children that Lucy Letby has been convicted of killing. The Times even told us which ones - everyone except child A, so children C, D, E, I, O and P.

Most reports, though not the last one from the Times, also said one of the children died at Liverpool, but we know none of these children died at Liverpool. That is why I'm saying there is clearly a mistake somewhere. The child you list may be included. Then the press is wrong about Lucy Letby being convicted of killing them. Or the press may be right about convictions. Then they would be wrong about any of them dying at Liverpool. So thank you for the document, but I don't think we will know for sure for a while, and I do find the mix up over the hospital a bit more likely

Times link at archive.is/qLGgM

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/04/lucy-letby-documentary-reveals-first-admission-of-tiny-doubt-from-doctors-who-accused-her

Summary of the new documentary by the Guardian. Even consultants are having doubts and it sounds like the extra police footage is tawdry and exploitiitative.

Well well well, if his doubt was that 'tiny' then he wouldn't have mentioned it at all, certainly not on a netflix documentary!