Lucy Letby thread

[Words]

Starting this as don’t think we have a new one.

Literally a panel of the world's leading experts in child medicine and science say it was neglect or natural causes. As opposed to the single discredited rent a gob fraudster who testified at her trial.

Even without that, the fact that her previous defense team entirely failed to defend her call the trial into question.

Actually the head of the panel of experts who sunsequently looked at each case pro bono, contacted the defense team expressing his concerns with the prosecution evidence and offering to testify. That the defense team did not respond to him , calls the whole trial into question. She was not defended.

It was not just Dewi Evans, why do people insist it was? There were several experts involved in giving evidence as to it being deliberate harm. Are you just listening to conspiracy nonsense to genuinely think he was the only one?

Even without that, the fact that her previous defense team entirely failed to defend her call the trial into question.

Forcing a very obviously guilty woman to call experts to the stand who will actively harm her case if cross-examined is not giving her the best shot at a fair trial. I wouldn't have minded seeing it though.

According to this-https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1raf7m8/full_transcript_of_profclarke_interviewrebuttal/

Shoo Lee has actually "misunderstood" another doctors work in his attempts to desperately find LL not guilty of any murders.

LH: So in Johan Smith's paper, he also talks about the research that's been done into animals, dogs and piglets, to be precise, which also, Professor Clarke says, bolsters the idea that it's possible for bubbles of air that have been injected into veins to move across the heart and into the arterial circulation. We also know, 'cause Professor Clarke's told us this, that Johan Smith, he's been in contact with him, and he also believes that Shoo Lee has misinterpreted his research paper.

Who to believe!

And for the stats lovers, you might find this video very interesting-

A pattern happening on that unit that was 80 million to one....

Oh wow he is going to be inundated with job offers as a statistician and world renowned after that video.

Months of research and that’s what he came up with, dear God.

Exactly this. There are structural problems and some specific to this case. Even if they didn't cause an MOJ this time, they could in the future.

I was looking at that video last night. It's pretty clumsy. He makes three major mistakes that I can see at a glance.

He mixes up the fact that Lucy Letby worked more night shifts than other nurses with the assertion that she worked more night shifts than day shifts.

He assumes that only Lucy Letby's overtime shifts would be occasions when her skills were needed because the ward needed more care for acute cases, forgetting that her manager allocated shifts with her nurses skill base in mind.

He forgets that shifts that are swapped for the same reason won't count as overtime.

In other words, he treats the risk element at Chester as similar over all shifts. One of the most fundamental points about this problem is that Chester had a hugely fluctuating element of risk, because the ICU wasn't constantly occupied. Sometimes it had no babies, sometimes one, sometimes two, sometimes three or more.

We cannot treat risk as equal across all shifts this way. We cannot treat Lucy Letby's non overtime shifts as randomly allocated. This is an example of the kinds of problems Jane Hutton pointed to with Chester police's approach. It's just counting, not a proper statistical analysis.

Lee has never argued that it's impossible for air to move across the heart to the arteries, as he and many others pointed out following that podcast. He states this clearly in his paper, along with the references to literature which Clarke also missed.

Clarke for some reason decided to broadcast his views without appearing to have read the paper. I have no problem at all deciding who to believe here!

@Firefly1987

No, it was not just Evans. Shall we talk about Sandie Bohin instead?

https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/news-ge/guernsey-families-publicly-cast-doubt-over-key-expert-witness-in-letby-prosecution/

It was Evans and people like Dr Bohin and Dr Marnerides working from Evans's notes, unfortunately. Then there was Dr Hindmarsh who openly admitted some of the his evidence was guesswork, hence outside his expertise. The rest of the expert witness work for the prosecution was essentially neutral.

No idea if Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty, but certainly it says a lot about the state of our healthcare system, that even the best international experts can't agree on the difference between serial murder and regular NHS healthcare ...

No parents testified to seeing anything like Lee's sign. The fact that people look at their words and see, ah, evidence of air embolism, suggests they haven't understood the science at all. What did any parent say that suggests air embolism?

No doctors noted Lee's sign in contemporary records. Dr Jayaram started to refer to it only after reading Lee's article. He didn't even mention it to the coroner when asked for any more information he could give on the child's death. Why was that?

When people assume they can tell us strangers' motivations - McDonald gets off on the attention! - they do seem to be straying into a form of fantasy and distraction. There are excellent reasons for Mark McDonald to court media attention. Publicity has brought more volunteer experts to the case. Lucy Letby's situation has made a wider public more aware of problems with the justice and appeals system, as discussed on this thread. Do we know how he feels about that? No, but if he enjoyed it, would it make an ounce of difference to his arguments? Try tackling those arguments instead of coming up with random slurs about the man. Anyone can do that about anyone, after all.

This.

It's absolutely baffling to me that in a hospital where at least two babies had died due to poor medical care before Letby stepped foot on the ward, when further deaths happened, their reaction was not to put in place the recommendations made after the deaths of Noah and Olly, but to start looking for a serial killer.

If it were a storyline in a novel, people would say it was far-fetched.

It is also terrifying that they were allowed to continue operating at the same level despite not implementing any of the recommendations made to them in various reports, even after more babies started dying.

Indeed, and that's appalling regardless of whether there was also a serial killer operating. Video footage of Letby murdering every single baby could suddenly emerge and that would still be spectacularly dangerous practice.

Exactly. Take Letby out of the equation, and more deaths on that unit were still inevitable.

We should all be asking why a unit where serious systematic failures had been identified on numerous occasions was allowed to continue operating without outside oversight.

It was happening in different hospitals as well. That's what Jeremy hunt said in a interview so where they just using her for the Drs mistakes.

Sal

https://www.theguardian.com/society/live/2026/jun/24/ockenden-maternity-review-nottingham-university-hospitals-trust-nhs-latest-news-updates

Worth looking at I think.

A big question in Lucy Letbys case is the lack of examination of the mothers care and the individual circumstances of the babies births, which could well have contributed to the babies stability, or more importantly lack of it.

Parents whose baby was cared for by Lucy Letby have come out with their own story, and strangely, they have nothing bad to say about her. They do, however have things to say about the birth that demonstrate scrutiny is needed.

In the interests of transparency, and the overall ongoing safety of mothers and babies, perhaps the relevant Trust should have a similar independent review and enquiry.

Women are at their most vulnerable during childbirth. They, and their babies deserve better.

This is so true and at least one baby died because their mother was not given antibiotics during labour and she transferred an infection to her child.

The Amos report on maternity in the UK will be out soon and we will see that these failures are systemic across the UK.

I know there are some posters on here who believe Letby is guilty and they are angry and upset about that. And nothing anyone ever says will change their minds or make them feel better. And it must be terrible to be a parent, particularly a post-partum mother and be told that your newborn baby has died, then has been murdered, and then probably died unnecessarily because the care in the hospital and the conditions on the ward were substandard. My heart goes out to them.

I trust Lee’s research of the actual medical records alongside 13 of some of the most experienced and distinguished neonatologists and paediatric specialists in the world, above a podcast reported on Reddit.

Public spending on health was drastically reduced under the Tories and the consequences are these babies’ deaths at the Countess of Chester, and 500 women and babies died or were harmed at Nottingham NHS Trust. Only now is funding increasing.

These babies died because of poor care and Lucy Letby will never have her own family or a proper life again because she is the scapegoat for the hospital and the doctors where the blame truly lies. My heart goes out to her as well.

The Reddit transcript could be an interesting read; however, it ignores that Lee et al did not base their findings solely on the absence of a rash.

There were other symptoms present that pointed to other causes. There was no other evidence of embolism present.

Even if we do accept the rash as a symptom of embolism, it was not documented at the time, it was not pictured. It would be impossible for anyone, including Evans, to diagnose air embolism based on a secondhand description of a rash. Many of the babies had sepsis, which also caused a mottled red/purplish rash.

You do realise an unsafe trial/verdict is not the same as not guilty right? You do realise that it’s a retrial which should happen?

This is a heated debate. Not others being upset and angry. There’s a difference and if you want to comment on it you’re best off understanding that.

Lee responded to that podcast and explained the problems with it at length. These weren't just matters of opinion or differing expert views. They were basic matters of fact - like the podcast team saying he'd denied air could cross over to the arterial system when he had distinctly said he could, and them claiming he hasn't used articles that he listed in his publication.

The case they identified as a new example of Lee's sign was another case of arterial air embolism like all the others where Lee's sign has been seen.

I don't know why Clarke agreed to be interviewed when he was so badly prepared, and the reporting certainly demonstrates that Liz Hull has never been following the science, despite having anointed herself an expert on everything to do with the case.

There won't necessarily be a retrial. The Court of Appeal may quash the conviction. Then it will be up to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to press charges again. They will only do that if they believe they are likely to succeed.

I suppose it's hard to tell how people are feeling from their posts, but I would agree that some people come across as upset and angry that the case is being discussed.

That poster can’t resist coming up with these outlandish ideas, remember her Shoo Lee theory, apparently he was so angry that he hadn’t been given enough credit for his work being part of what locked her up that he then assembled an expert team as revenge to get her out 🤔🤔

Pure fantasy land

There would be an absolute uproar if she wasn’t given a retrial. I doubt it’s in anyone’s favour for it not to be taken back to court. The Birmingham 6 for example there was literally no evidence other than forced confessions. This isn’t the case for Lucy Letby.

It’s very possible in this case that if the convictions are quashed that the CPS won’t try the case again. It will be the special division (can’t remember the name) who decides, not the Cheshire CPS. It was the special division who said there was not enough evidence when the police sent them files hoping for more charges. They won’t put her on trial again if they can’t put a case together, Dewi Evans is retired, Sandi Bohin said she won’t take the stand again so they would need to find new experts. There’s also issues with witnesses like Ravi Jayaram etc.

However that still won’t be the end of it, a full investigation into the care at the hospital and what really happened will almost certainly have to be held so that people are held accountable for substandard care.

The Court of Appeal will have to explain their justification for quashing the conviction. That should inform public opinion, and the CPS should not waste public money and add to any potential miscarriage of justice by going through with a retrial unless they believe there is a good chance of a conviction.

Their job is to look at strength of evidence first. If that doesn't meet their test, they don't go on to consider public interest. Whether there is an uproar or not would not matter. (I am sure there will be an uproar whatever happens - it's a heated debate as you say!)