Lucy Letby new evidence

[Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain]

https://www.thejusticegap.com/new-research-undermining-letbys-convictions-for-insulin-

https://www.healthcare-management.uk/police-arrest-lucy-letby-hospital

New evidence out re this case. Any views? Sorry but think first link won’t work so will reposts.

If you genuinely walked in on a nurse and caught her red handed harming a baby - which is what Ravi Jayaram claimed months after the event, what do you think should be done? Bear in mind there is a statutory duty to report any kind of child abuse for professionals, and parents are often separated from their own children on hearsay and suspicion / opinion, just to be on the safe side. This incident only came into play when the consultants needed to pique the police's interest down the line, and an email released after the trial strongly implies that his recollection has varied considerably.

Genuine suspicion of harm to a child by anybody isn't a "management" issue, it's safeguarding, and we are told over and over again on MN that no matter the validity or consequence, it's a good thing. I don't see why it wouldn't apply at the COCH.

I’m surprised how quiet the whole thing appears to be at the moment.

He claimed he caught her "virtually red handed", he didn't report it at the time and the doctors and nurse managers allowed her to finish her shift. He later changed his account of what happened.

FFS get this poor woman out of jail. I've said it since day one, that this is the biggest miscarriage of justice. Her life utterly ruined, due to a poorly run hospital and a shoddy defence.

I think he recalled a scenario where he saw her standing over a baby who was deteriorating and she was literally stood doing nothing

Whilst this sort of made him uncomfortable he obviously did not think the unthinkable I mean who would!!

I think he recalled a scenario where he saw her standing over a baby who was deteriorating and she was literally stood doing nothing

His recall is incorrect: according to his own email from the time, Letby "called Dr Jayaram to inform of low saturations" -- that's not doing nothing.

It's also implausible that he'd see clear nursing malpractice and not scold Letby or report her to her supervisor (especially if he already wanted her off the ward). So whatever the event was, it wasn't clear nursing malpractice. Then, how can the same event be a clear murder attempt?

I would like to talk in some detail about
this, if I may.
So Baby K was a very premature baby who -- in whom
-- the mother had not been able to have been transferred
to a tertiary centre, so at 25 weeks gestation was born
at the Countess in the early hours of the morning.
Baby was stabilised on the neonatal unit, unwell
but stable and -- I mean, I will go into the details.
They have been widely reported.
But another nurse -- I'm not sure if she is
ciphered or not so I won't say names, but another nurse
was the named nurse looking after the baby and told me
that she was going to the delivery suite to update the
parents and that Letby was -- we used the term "baby
sitting" so another nurse sort of covers while another
nurse has to be away.
Now, it's been reported, there is a narrative that,
you know, I walked in and caught Letby doing something
and that is incorrect. I was sitting outside the room
writing in the notes, but by this stage I had
significant discomfort this was February 2016 and
I just felt uncomfortable knowing that Letby was in the
room.
And actually I was convincing myself that I was
being completely irrational and ridiculous and so I got
up and went in just to make sure everything was fine.
There's been a lot of speculation about whether the
alarms were there or not and all the rest of it but
I didn't walk in and see anything happening. What
I walked in was to find a baby clearly deteriorating and
then when I went to assess Baby K, the endotracheal tube
was dislodged but importantly, the nurse looking after
the baby, who I believe ordinarily by this stage would
have flagged up this deterioration, because in a baby of
this gestation whose oxygen saturations are dropping,
the first thing you do is look at the baby, look at the
ventilator, the chest isn't moving, it's likely it's
a tube problem, not responding at all.
And at the time, my priority was to resuscitate
Baby K, which we did successfully. I will take this
with me to my grave, I at that point thought: well, how
has that happened?
Now, in isolation in that if nothing else had
happened before or after, I would have probably thought
nothing more of it. But was it just coincidence that
this baby who had been stable to this point in the
period where the nurse looking after the baby and Letby
was supervising the baby, this event happened?

the guy was not out to get her at all - you can see that from his comments above

Who is this "guy", is it his confession or his witness statement.

It is Ravi Jayaram.

Baby K was the one that went to retrial because in the original one the jury couldn't agree a verdict. The retrial where the judge directed the jury that it didn't matter if they couldn't be sure what she did, as long as they thought she did "something". Which to most people does not reflect truth or justice. The one where his recollections varied over the years.

The deep dive into it is quite revelatory.

https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/lucy-letby-the-trial-for-baby-k

Worth reading.

I can honestly say I am hard pushed to think of a more disturbing case than this one; it’s called into question everything I had trust in.

The baby wasn’t stable though if you listened to the evidence from the Arrowe Park neonatologists who came to pick Baby K up for transfer; or if you listen to Prof Lee’s panels’ findings.

The Arrowe Park neonatologists immediately diagnosed serious lung disease, kidney problems and uncontrolled blood sugars. None of this seems to have been picked up by the doctors at CoCH. The mortality review at Arrowe Park concluded that Baby K arrived there in such poor condition as to make death inevitable and noted suboptimal care at CoCH.

Worse, according to Prof Lee’s panel - the CoCH doctors actually made major mistakes which led to the baby’s deterioration - notably the wrong size breathing tube and misreading a 95% air leak, as oxygen saturation, among other things.

In short, Baby K was never stable - CoCH team simply failed to realise how poorly the baby was, and then messed up the treatment.

I’ve read that article. All I can say is wow. Just wow.

Sometimes major miscarriages of justice highlight massive systemic failings. And the appropriate response is to reform and to learn from it.

But doesn’t help the parents of the babies or LL whose lives have been ruined whatever the outcome. And I agree this is a deeply disturbing case.

I don't think people realise the potential ramifications of cases like these. Most people, fortunately, never experience being sucked into "the system" and trying to fight it as an innocent person. Their metric is purely academic and based on observations of reported cases. People say "Well, I'd do this / react like this /;say this" which is utter fantasy. Until you're in it, to whatever level, you have no idea of how it works.

Most people retain a modicum of trust that the truth will save the day, yet our justice system, both civil and criminal is adversarial, and in the absence of clear evidence, comes down to which side can present the most compelling argument.

This case is most disturbing because it highlights that where there are vested interests or agendas, which are sometimes emotionally, financially or even subconsciously driven ( defendent seems a bit weird - I can't identify with them - more likely guilty than not) and a dearth of solid evidence, anyone could find themselves accused of murder simply by being in the close proximity of someone who dies unexpectedly, and where the cause is undetermined or ambiguous. And that could, theoretically happen to anyone with the right / wrong combination of circumstances.

I know, ifc its true then the doctors need to be held accountable

Presumably the CQC know what they're talking about.
I'm pleased to hear they saved your dm.
Hope she's doing well.

@MistressoftheDarkSide

well what is your proposal on how this case should have been handled - the experts she was able to instruct - there was strategic reasons why they weren’t instructed- a strategy that was believed to benefit Letby at the time by herself and her legal team

the consultants at the hospital did not say she was a murderer they just noted a coincidence that was occurring during her presence on shift and quite rightly wanted her to be removed from the situation

it was these consultants who wanted the unit downgraded due to the clinical events that were happening on the ward - so they were trying to protect other babies from coming to harm - they were not trying to frame Letby.

It didn’t just receive poor CQC ratings - in 2025 the CoCH ranked as the second worst-performing trust in the U.K.

This is the thing, isn’t it? It calls into question the integrity of the judicial system; the NHS; the police, those we think we can trust like doctors and police officers, even the press.

It leaves me with an incredible sense of disquiet and always has, even when I believed her to be guilty. The fact there seems to be no hope of a conclusion any time soon (Cheshire police are doubling down) makes it all the more worrying.

I think we need to include the media in that list as the reporting was part of the problem. Partly the lack of objectivity and partly woefully poor grasp of medical data and stats.

It’s very odd that the NYer article and Private Eye’s pieces could not be published sub judice, but the papers had free rein on baby killer hysteria. What kind of balanced or responsible reporting is that?

They didn’t just note a coincidence at all, they surmised based on her perceived presence that she was harming babies and made a distinct effort to portray their suspicions in such a way as to “pique the interest of the police” - their words. When the police first heard about this LL was already in their sights. It wasn’t the consultants who wanted the unit downgraded, that happened as a result of a review by the RCPCH.

I'm sorry, but can I suggest you really read up on the case in its entirety? So much has come to light since the trial about how the investigation was botched from the start, and how it came to happen, that really could have formed a good portion of a more robust defence, and some of it was omitted for gery dubious reasons. For example the issues with statistics - that both were and were not central to the case depending on perspective. After Roy Meadows, any use of "likelihood" or "probability" in a criminal trial, or even sly hints at bad luck or coincidence need rigorous examination.

Likewise allowing a hack like Dewi Evans swan in and offer his services, and suggesting which other known to him exoerts to check his work is palpably poor protocol for an investigation of this gravity and scope. Shoddy doesn't begin to cover it, sadly.

@PinkTonic no the downgrade was requested by the consultants and then implemented by Ian Harvey - however he was reluctant to do it and so reqHeated the RCPH come in to review things that might of been contributing to higher than normal mortality rates - (he didn’t tell them about a suspicious link between Letby and collapses)

he didn’t want to believe Letby was up to anything

I wonder who was arrested for corporate manslaughter recently 👀