Latest news with #BabiesF
Spectator
5 days ago
- Spectator
The case for Letby's innocence looks weaker than ever
The annual Panorama documentary on Lucy Letby appeared on BBC 1 this week, barely a week after a more one-sided pro-Letby documentary was shown on ITV. Channel 4 has a Letby show in the works and Channel 5 has already broadcast two. Fortunately, there is plenty of material for producers to get their teeth into. Not only did her trial last ten months but there was a retrial after that, plus two appeal attempts, and her supporters have been making new claims on any almost weekly basis ever since. The ITV documentary was Letbyism 1.0, mostly consisting of talking points about shift patterns, Post-it notes, door-swipe data etc. that have either been debunked or which are now understood to be irrelevant. The Panorama documentary – the third in what is sure to be an ongoing series – focused on the second phase of Letbyism that began with two press conferences, the second organised by Letby's PR firm (yes, she has a PR firm working for her), in December 2024 and February 2025. In the first press conference we were told that the insulin tests used to convict her of poisoning Baby F and Baby L were wrong, and that Baby O was accidentally killed by a doctor. In the second press conference we were told that no murders had taken place, that the insulin readings for Babies F and L were perfectly normal, and that Baby O died from a liver injury sustained during childbirth. Confused? So are they. Letby has a number of distinguished medics in her corner but they seem to be finding it difficult to put forward a consistent narrative. A panel of experts convened by the Canadian neonatologist and economist Dr Shoo Lee has offered innocent explanations for all of the 22 collapses and deaths on Letby's indictment (including the ones for which she was not convicted, which seems over-eager). Thanks to the unexpected appearance of credible physicians on Team Letby, her supporters have been playing a game of 'my expert is bigger than your expert' ever since, but the Court of Appeal is not interested in how 'eminent' or 'world leading' a witness is. It only wants to know if they have a point, and it is far from obvious that the 'international panel', which contains no pathologists, radiologists, endocrinologists or haematologists, have cracked the case by looking at some medical records a decade after the events took place. Dr Michael Hall, a neonatologist who was ready to give evidence for the defence in Letby's first trial but was never called, gave short shrift to the panel's theory that Baby A died from thrombosis. He pointed out that this suggestion had been raised in court and said 'I'm not sure that the expert witnesses have added anything to that conversation.' Nor was there any evidence that Baby A's mother had passed a rare blood-clotting disorder onto the child. On the contrary, blood tests had disproved this. Hall was also dismissive of the idea that Baby O suffered a liver injury during childbirth. Baby O's mother had plenty of complaints to air about the Countess of Chester Hospital at the Thirlwall Inquiry, but the standard of her planned Caesarean section was not one of them. In any case, Baby O's haemoglobin readings strongly suggested that he had not suffered a liver injury at birth and even Letby admitted that whatever happened to his liver had happened 'on my watch' the following day. Speaking anonymously – presumably to avoid the wrath of Letby's increasingly militant fanbase – a pathologist told Panorama that the theory about Baby O being killed by a doctor's misplaced needle was poppycock. Indeed, everyone on the show seemed to agree that this never happened, despite Dr Richard Taylor stating it as fact on live television eight months ago. With regards to the insulin poisonings, Shoo Lee relied on the expertise of the mechanical engineer Dr Geoff Chase and the chemical engineer Dr Helen Shannon, possibly because he couldn't get any paediatric endocrinologists to come out to bat for Britain's most prolific child-murderer. In their report, they claimed that the incredibly high insulin readings and extremely low C-peptide readings for Baby F and Baby L were 'within the expected range for preterm infants'. Professor John Gregory, a paediatric endocrinologist, told Panorama that such readings were 'exceedingly unlikely' to be natural; in other words, the babies were almost certainly given exogenous insulin. Interviewed by Panorama, Dr Chase said that 'within the expected range' was a poor choice of words, but insisted that such results were 'not uncommon'. He then downgraded this to 'unusual' and 'possible'. The only British member of Lee's panel is Professor Neena Modi. Asked about the claim that Baby O had suffered a liver injury during childbirth, her response was essentially that although there wasn't any evidence that such an injury had been sustained in this instance, a traumatic childbirth is the kind of thing that could cause a liver injury. It was at this moment that the penny dropped: from the outside, Lee's panel do not seem to have been looking for the theory with the most evidence to support it, nor even for the most likely explanation. They appear to have been looking for anything that sounds vaguely plausible so long as it doesn't involve Lucy Letby inflicting deliberate harm on defenceless infants. Dr Hall, who seems genuinely unsure whether Letby is guilty or innocent, said that he feared that the tenuous opinions of the international panel could 'rebound' on her. As this Panorama showed, many of them can be batted away with ease since they were either raised and rejected in court or have no evidence to support them. Letby can go to the Criminal Cases Review Commission as many times as she likes, and is likely to have plenty of time to do so, but every application takes years and the Court of Appeal does not appreciate having its time wasted with lengthy submissions of little merit. The eminence of the experts and the hard work of the PR company do not come into it. Meanwhile, the public may see distinguished doctors disagreeing and conclude that there must be reasonable doubt by definition, but that is not how it works. Only one side can be right and the medical evidence, though important, was only one part of the case. Hundreds of pieces of evidence could be cited, almost all of it circumstantial but almost all of it pointing an accusing finger at staff nurse Letby. It will take many more documentaries for it all to be broadcast to the viewing public, but at the current rate we should get there by the end of the decade.
The Independent
02-04-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Lucy Letby barrister promises to hand over ‘fresh' evidence in freedom bid
Convicted serial killer Lucy Letby 's legal team is pushing for a review of her case, presenting new medical evidence they claim points to alternative explanations for the infant deaths at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Her barrister, Mark McDonald, will submit findings from a 14-member international panel of neonatologists and pediatric specialists to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). The panel asserts that inadequate medical care and natural causes, not Letby's actions, led to the babies' collapses. Bolstering this claim, a separate report from seven medical professionals questions the reliability of insulin tests conducted on two infants, which formed a key part of the prosecution's case against Letby. The CCRC, an independent body investigating potential miscarriages of justice, will now assess this new evidence. Letby, 35, from Hereford, is serving 15 whole-life orders after she was convicted across two trials at Manchester Crown Court of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others, with two attempts on one of her victims, between June 2015 and June 2016. Last month, lawyers for the families of Letby's victims rubbished the international panel's findings as 'full of analytical holes' and 'a rehash' of the defence case heard at trial. Mr McDonald will also give the CCRC a separate report on the insulin cases of Child F and Child L from seven experts including two consultant neonatalogists, a retired professor in forensic toxicology and a paediatric endocrinologist. Their report summary concluded the jury were misled in a number of 'important areas' including medical and evidential facts, and that key information on the insulin testing procedure was not submitted. It added that the biomechanical test used in both cases 'can give rise to falsely high insulin results' due to the presence of antibodies which can interfere with the outcome. The authors said: 'Our inescapable conclusion is that this evidence significantly undermines the validity of the assertions made about the insulin and C-peptide testing presented in court.' Speaking of both reports, Mr McDonald said: 'The fresh evidence totally undermines the prosecution case at trial. 'This is the largest international review of neonatal medicine ever undertaken, the results of which show Lucy Letby's convictions are no longer safe. 'The conclusions of the report on Babies F and L clearly demonstrate that the case must go back to the Court of Appeal as a matter of urgency. 'I hope the CCRC will realise this and refer the case without undue delay. 'Lucy Letby is currently serving 15 whole-life terms in prison, when overwhelming independent expert evidence indicates that no babies were murdered.' Letby lost two bids last year to challenge her convictions at the Court of Appeal, in May for seven murders and seven attempted murders, and in October for the attempted murder of a baby girl which she was convicted of by a different jury at a retrial. Lady Justice Thirlwall is due to publish in November the findings from the public inquiry into how the former nurse was able to commit her crimes. In written submissions to the inquiry, Richard Baker KC, said families of Letby's victims were concerned that medical evidence was being presented at press conferences. He added it 'raises the obvious suspicion that the priority for Letby and her supporters is to generate maximum publicity for her cause rather than approaching the issues that form the basis of any appeal in a reasoned way'. The mother of Child C told the inquiry: 'The media PR campaign aimed to garner public sympathy for Letby demonstrates a complete lack of understanding for Letby's crimes and the complexity of the case. 'The misinformed and inaccurate media circus surrounding this case, our son and the other babies is potentiating the distress of all of the families involved.' Cheshire Constabulary is continuing a review of deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the neonatal units of the Countess of Chester Hospital and the Liverpool Women's Hospital during Letby's time as a nurse from 2012 to 2016. Senior investigating officer Det Supt Paul Hughes said: 'The investigation into the actions of Lucy Letby, the trial process and medical experts continues to face scrutiny and criticism, much of it ill-informed and based on a very partial knowledge of the facts and totality of evidence presented at court and at the Court of Appeal. 'This case has been rigorously and fairly tested through two juries and subsequently scrutinised by two sets of appeal court judges. 'Lucy Letby's trial was one of the longest running murder trials in British criminal history with the jury diligently carrying out their deliberations for more than 100 hours. 'As the case unfolded, multiple medical experts, specialising in areas of paediatric radiology, paediatric pathology, haematology, paediatric neurology and paediatric endocrinology and two main medical experts (consultant paediatricians), were enlisted to ensure that we carried out as thorough an investigation as possible. 'All are highly regarded in their area of expertise and were cross-examined whilst giving their evidence in court. 'The details of the case are clear and have been widely reported on.' He went on: 'It is out of a deep sense of respect for the parents of the babies that we have not and will not get drawn into the widespread commentary and speculation online and in the media. They have suffered greatly and continue to do so as this case plays out in a very public forum. 'Cheshire Constabulary is ready to support the CCRC and any appropriate review processes in order to inform any questions that may arise.'
