Latest news with #CountessOfChesterHospital
BBC News
4 hours ago
- BBC News
The flaws in medical evidence on all sides of the Lucy Letby case
When it comes to the Lucy Letby case, there are two parallel universes. In one, the question of her guilt is settled. She is a monster who murdered seven babies and attempted to murder seven more while she was a nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and the other universe, Letby is the victim of a flawed criminal justice system in which unreliable medical evidence was used to condemn and imprison an innocent woman. This is what Letby's barrister Mark McDonald argues. He says he has the backing of a panel of the best experts in the world who say there is no evidence any babies were deliberately extremes are both disturbing and bewildering. One of them is wrong - but which? Who should we believe? An alternative version of events The families of the infants say there is no doubt. Letby was convicted after a 10-month trial by a jury that had considered a vast range of evidence. They say Letby's defenders are picking on small bits of evidence out of context and that the constant questioning of her guilt is deeply distressing.I have spent almost three years investigating the Letby case - in that time I have made three Panorama documentaries and cowritten a book on the subject. Yet, if true, the new evidence, presented by Mark McDonald in a series of high-profile press conferences and media releases, is to his experts, the prosecution expert medical case is unreliable. Mark McDonald has not released the panel's full reports, which are currently with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the body he needs to persuade to reopen Letby's case, but he has released summaries of the panel's findings. Letby was found guilty of 15 counts of murder and attempted murder, and the jury in her original trial reached unanimous verdicts on three of those cases. That is a good indication of where the strongest medical evidence might get a sense of the imperfections woven through both the prosecution and the defence arguments, it's worth looking at one of those cases in which the guilty verdict was unanimous: that of Baby O. What really happened to Baby O? Baby O was born in June 2016, one of triplet brothers. At Letby's trial, the jury was told that his death was in part the result of liver injuries, which the prosecution pathologist described as impact-type injuries - similar to those in a car in other cases for which Letby was convicted, the prosecution said circumstantial evidence also tied her to the crime. However, a paediatric pathologist who was not involved in the case but has seen Baby O's post-mortem report, says it was "unlikely" Baby O's liver injuries were caused by impact - as the prosecution claims."You can't completely rule out the possibility," says the pathologist, who does not want to be identified. "But in my view, the location of the injuries and the condition of the liver tissue itself don't fit with that explanation."Which raises the obvious question - if the prosecution were wrong about Baby O's liver injuries, then why did he die? Questions around air embolism Letby was accused of injecting air into the blood of Baby O as well as that of other babies. This, the prosecution said, caused an air bubble and a blockage in the circulation known as air the trial the prosecution pointed to several pieces of evidence to make their case, including a 1989 academic study of air embolism in pre-term babies, which noted skin discolouration as one possible feature of it. Prosecutors argued that these same skin colour changes were observed in several babies in the Letby case. However, Dr Shoo Lee, a Canadian neonatologist and one of the authors of that 1989 study, is now part of Letby's team of defence experts working with Mark McDonald. He argues that his study was says skin discolouration has not featured in any reported cases of air embolism in babies where the air has entered the circulation via a vein – which is what the prosecution alleged happened in the Letby case. In other words, the prosecution was wrong to use skin discolouration as evidence of air sounds significant. But is it enough to defeat the air embolism allegations? As with many aspects of the Letby case, the answer is not prosecution did not rely on skin discolouration alone to make their case for air embolism. And although there have not been any reported cases of skin discolouration in babies where air has entered the circulation via a vein, some critics have argued that the number of reported air embolism cases is small and that the theory is still possible. To muddy the waters further, another of Mark McDonald's panel of experts has said that in fact there was post-mortem evidence of air embolism in the babies. "We know these babies suffered air embolism because of the post-mortem imaging in some of them," says Neena Modi, a professor of neonatal believes this is highly likely to have occurred during resuscitation, and that there are much more plausible explanations for the collapses and deaths of the babies in the Letby case than air embolism. The air embolism theory, she said, was "highly speculative". But her remarks show the debate is far from settled. The needle theory: another explanation? There has been another explanation for Baby O's December 2024, Mark McDonald called a press conference in which one of his experts, Dr Richard Taylor, claimed that a doctor had accidentally pierced the baby's liver with a needle during resuscitation. This, he argued, had led to the baby's Taylor added: "I think the doctor knows who they are. I have to say from a personal point of view that if this had happened to me, I'd be unable to sleep at night knowing that what I had done had led to the death of a baby, and now there is a nurse in jail, convicted of murder."The doctor accused of causing the baby's death was subsequently identified as Stephen Brearey – one of Letby's principal accusers at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Mr Brearey says: "Given the ongoing investigations and inquiries, and to respect the confidentiality of those involved, I will not be making any further comment at this time." It was a bombshell claim. But does the evidence support it? One indication that the needle theory might be shaky was that Dr Taylor, by his own admission, had not seen Baby O's medical notes and was relying on a report that had been written by two other obvious problem with the needle theory is that it had already been examined at length during Letby's trial. The prosecution pathologist concluded that there was no evidence that a needle had pierced Baby O's liver while he was alive and the paediatric pathologist we spoke to told us: "These injuries weren't caused by a needle. They were in different parts of the liver and there was no sign of any needle injury on the liver." Even if the needle had penetrated the baby's liver, it cannot explain why Baby O collapsed in the first place or why he died - the needle was inserted after the baby's final and fatal collapse towards the end of the asked if he still stood by his comments about the doctor's needle, Dr Taylor told us that while the needle may not have been the primary cause of death, his "opinion has not substantially changed".He said the "needle probably penetrated the liver" of Baby O, and "probably accelerated his demise". Lack of consensus among the experts The question of where this leaves the case presented by Mark McDonald's panel of experts when it comes to the needle theory is a difficult one to would appear that among Letby's defenders, there is not neonatologist Dr Neil Aiton is one of the authors of the original report on which Dr Taylor based his comments. Dr Aiton says that he has examined the evidence independently and has concluded that Baby O's liver injuries were caused by inappropriate resuscitation attempts, including hyperinflation of the baby's he also says it was "pretty clear" a needle had punctured the liver during Dr Aiton was told that other experts, including the paediatric pathologist who spoke to the BBC, have examined the case of Baby O and said that it is implausible to conclude this happened, he said that there were two possibilities. Either the liver ruptured because of a needle or it ruptured spontaneously. Dr Aiton's position appears to be that poor resuscitation caused the baby's liver injuries and whether it was a needle or not is "not important".That is a contrast from what Dr Taylor said in that December press conference. And critics say Dr Aiton's account still does not explain why Baby O collapsed in the first place and why he needed such desperate resuscitation.A summary report from Letby's expert panel appears to back further away from the needle theory. It says a needle "may have" punctured the experts, including the paediatric pathologist, said that Dr Aiton's observation of hyper-inflated lungs would not explain Baby O's liver again, the case illustrates how difficult it is to distinguish between plausible and implausible claims. The debate around birth trauma Since that press conference, other experts working for Letby's defence team have put forward another theory for Baby O's death. They say his liver injuries were the result of traumatic delivery at the time of Modi says this was a "highly plausible cause".But that has been contested from a surprising direction. Dr Mike Hall, a neonatologist, was Lucy Letby's original defence expert and attended court throughout her trial. He has been a staunch critic of her conviction, arguing her trial wasn't fair and that there is no definitive medical evidence that babies were deliberately harmed. However, Dr Hall's view is that evidence for the birth trauma theory is simply not there. He notes that Baby O was born in good condition by caesarean section and there is no record of a traumatic delivery in the baby's medical notes."There's still no evidence that anyone did anything deliberately to harm Baby O," he adds. "However, something was going on with Baby O, which we haven't explained."We don't know what the cause of this is. But that doesn't mean that we therefore have to pretend that we know." The insulin evidence For the jury, Baby O was one of the clearest cases that proved Letby was a killer. And yet there appears to be flawed expert evidence on both were two other cases where the jury returned unanimous verdicts – the cases of Babies F and L. The prosecution argued that both babies had been poisoned with insulin and highlighted blood tests that it said were clear evidence of this. For the prosecution, the insulin cases proved that someone at the Countess of Chester Hospital was harming defence have, meanwhile, marshalled numerous arguments against the insulin theory. One is that the blood test used - an immunoassay - is inaccurate and should have been verified. But even Letby's experts accept the test is accurate around 98% of the time. Another argument is that premature babies can process insulin differently and that the blood test results are "within the expected range for pre-term infants". But the medical specialists we've spoken to are baffled by this claim and say it goes against mainstream scientific understanding. Of course, mainstream opinion can be wrong. But it is difficult to tell because Letby's defence team have not shared the scientific of the experts behind the report – a mechanical engineer who carries out biomedical research – clarified that his analysis says the blood test results were "not uncommon". However, Letby's defence declined to show the BBC the published studies that support this again, the claims of both the prosecution and defence are not the question of whether Letby's case should be re-examined by the Court of Appeal now lies with CCRC. They have the task of studying Mark McDonald's expert he is successful and Lucy Letby's case is referred back to the Court of Appeal - that is ultimately where the expert evidence on both sides will face a true image credit: Cheshire Constabulary, PA BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Daily Mail
'Lucy Letby regularly wept in my arms, asking: "Why are they doing this to me? I've done nothing wrong'": Colleague's TV revelation as dramatic new picture shows nurse at her friend's wedding after police relaxed bail conditions
Lucy Letby wept repeatedly in the arms of a close colleague as she tried to cope with allegations that she was harming babies in her care, a powerful TV documentary will reveal tonight. She had been banned from nursing and sidelined in a backroom job after hospital consultants suggested she was 'purposely harming babies'. At the time, one senior nurse expressed shock at the claims, saying Letby's clinical practice as a neonatal nurse was 'second to none'. She was often accused of being cold and unfeeling during her trial for murder. But she was in fact devastated by the accusations against her, according to Karen Rees, former head of urgent care nursing at the Countess of Chester Hospital where she worked. The bitter, tearful scenes followed suggestions made by consultants at the hospital that Letby was doing harm. 'She was broken, cried regularly in my arms and in my office, and her mantra to me was, 'Why are they doing this to me? I've done nothing wrong',' said Ms Rees. The show also reveals another friend was so sure of her innocence that she sought permission from the authorities to invite Letby to her wedding while she was on bail. Letby was convicted in 2023 of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others. She was sentenced to die in prison. But since then there has been a growing clamour among expert doctors, scientists and statistics experts, who say her trial was unfair, that there are serious doubts about prosecution evidence and that the case should be reopened. Tonight's programme describes how the nurse had believed she had good working relationships with the consultants who denounced her. She was devastated that they thought what they thought. Ms Rees, in her first TV interview, revealed she was given the task of breaking the bad news to Letby that she was being removed from the job she was trained for – the care of newborns – and confined to a humiliating desk job in a back office. Letby had to pretend to colleagues that this was her choice. Ms Rees said: 'I was told just to say that concerns had been raised, and that this was seen as a neutral act. 'She was not being accused of anything at this point. But it seemed safer to take her off clinical practice to protect herself as well as babies on that neonatal unit.' As she was led away from the unit where she had worked, Letby did not even question the decision. 'She was just looking at me,' added Ms Rees. 'I then had to walk her across the hospital grounds. I was the only one making conversation. She wasn't asking me why. She wasn't crying. She was just shocked.' But, said Ms Rees, she cried a lot later. Eventually, after police became involved, Letby was prescribed antidepressants which often suppress moods and emotions. She told her trial in May 2023 she was still taking them and that she had considered suicide at the time she was removed from her job. Ms Rees recalled how Letby once told her: 'You're the only person that hasn't asked me, 'Have I purposely harmed anybody?'.' She said: 'The reason why I never asked her is that I never thought she had. No. I didn't, I don't believe it.' Her revelations are one of several dramatic moments in the documentary Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt? to be shown on ITV this evening. Also interviewed for the show is Dawn – who did not wish her surname to be used. She is a close childhood friend of Letby who has stood by her despite her conviction and is convinced of her innocence. The programme reveals she is so sure that Letby is blameless that she invited the accused nurse to attend her wedding while she was on bail. Dawn also undermines claims that scribbled notes found in Letby's house were any sort of confession. She reveals that, at sixth form college together, both trained in peer-support counselling and learned of a common method to deal with anxieties – to write down your worst fears and feelings. 'If you're feeling overwhelmed, you write down everything that's going through your mind,' she said. And this is what Letby did when undergoing counselling arranged for her by the hospital. Dawn recalled her reaction when she learned her friend was being accused: 'I watched it all unfold and every step of the way I couldn't believe it.' In her darkest moments she wondered if Letby had perhaps inadvertently caused harm, because she was newly-qualified and under heavy pressure. But that was the limit of what she could believe. Dawn was at work when she heard the guilty verdicts and said she could not take them in. 'I sat there dumbfounded for a while, not really knowing how to process what I was hearing. I didn't think it was real. I immediately switched to thinking what happens next? This can't be it, she can't just spend the rest of her life in prison. I'm living a life that Lucy should be living beside me. 'We should both be having families. We'd both bought our houses, and we were looking forward to the next chapter of our lives – and then all this happens. There's so much guilt that I'm living a life that Lucy should also be living.' The striking loyalty of a lifelong friend and a senior colleague are not the only elements of the programme, produced by Anouk Curry, which will shake the beliefs of many in Letby's guilt. It also provides a devastating counter to prosecution claims that babies on the unit were poisoned with insulin. Many on the prosecution side viewed this as the nearest they had to a 'smoking gun' in a trial which lacked any hard evidence. The 'immuno-assay' test used to make this claim was useless for the purpose, according to Matt Johl, an American expert in chemistry and forensic science. 'That kind of test was never meant to put somebody in prison,' he said. 'You would not strip a gold medal from an international athlete on an immuno-assay test. 'It's not good enough for drug testing pilots, or anyone who has mandatory testing. If it's not good enough to fire them, how can it be good enough to put someone in prison?' It also probes the strange contradictions among witnesses. Dr Dewi Evans changed his mind about how Letby was supposed to have killed, when the facts failed to back up his original theory. And Dr Ravi Jayaram did huge damage to Letby's case with his account of her allegedly failing to act to help a sick baby. It was even wrongly claimed she was caught 'virtually red-handed' in this incident. Dr Jayaram's version of events was exploded in an email which surfaced long after the trial. Yet he had said in a TV interview that the incident was 'etched on my memory and would live in my nightmares forever'. The programme is aired as the Crown Prosecution Service considers the possibility of fresh charges against Letby. The case has been put before the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which has the power to order an appeal – the courts have so far refused to hear one. Letby's new barrister Mark McDonald is shown in the documentary being questioned outside the CCRC offices in Birmingham by the Daily Mail's Liz Hull, who has covered the case from the beginning. Mr McDonald admits to camera that, despite the involvement of some of the most distinguished doctors in the world, who say no crime was committed, an appeal may yet be refused on a technicality – that the objections to the guilty verdict could have been raised at the original trial, so it was not the court's fault that things went wrong. He asks: 'If they dismiss this evidence, to say 'Well, it could have been called at trial... she's innocent but we are not going to take any notice of it because they could have done that, so we will let an innocent person stay in prison' – well, what is the logic of that?' Professor Neena Modi, a leading expert in the care of newborn babies, concludes: 'It's been deeply disturbing that one can have such a high profile and tremendously important trial that seems to have been conducted with so many flaws.' PETER HITCHENS: Still convinced of her guilt? Watch this brick-by-brick dismantling of the police case This is old-fashioned, high-quality responsible broadcasting. It is what television was invented for. It is the kind of thing which makes us better citizens. Very seldom will you see an argument so fairly, fluently and powerfully made. Lucy Letby's case must surely now be reopened, especially after the contribution of Professor Neena Modi, one of this country's most distinguished experts in the care of newborns. She has re-examined the records of the babies who died, and her verdict is devastating. You will wonder what the jury might have concluded if they had heard her testimony. Is there in fact another explanation of the babies' deaths? Might they have survived in a better hospital? Is it almost too upsetting to speak it out loud? Before the spike in deaths which led to the suspicions growing round Ms Letby, the Countess of Chester Hospital had been required to take cases which it was not really equipped or staffed to cope with. Professor Modi says problems could have been recognised earlier and 'perhaps for some of the babies the outcomes might not have been what they were'. She describes her discoveries as 'harrowing' and 'deeply distressing'. She concludes 'This was a neonatal unit that was being required to look after babies who should not have been cared for there. The babies that we are referring to were all extremely vulnerable. 'Some of them were demonstrably and recognisably on a knife-edge. Others could have been recognised to have been on a knife-edge. But they were not monitored appropriately and not treated appropriately. 'Problems went unrecognised until the point at which a baby deteriorated very abruptly... so that the babies might not have died had their difficulties been addressed earlier.' If this is so, why is Lucy Letby in prison until she dies? The documentary does not ignore the misery and distress of the bereaved parents. Especially striking is the role, as a sort of guide, of The Guardian's Northern Editor Josh Halliday, who sat through the entire, gruelling Letby trial. Josh still looks haunted by what he heard, and beautifully expresses the grief at the core of the whole case – the families who lost their babies. He speaks of 'the empty car seats, the unpacked hospital bags, the nurseries at home that would never get slept in... You could really feel the anguish and the destruction that it caused in their lives. It broke families apart. It was just shocking and awful'. Josh started by accepting the prosecution case, but now has serious doubts. He describes his reaction after a panel of internationally renowned doctors concluded no crimes had taken place and so Ms Letby could not be guilty of them: 'It was like two worlds colliding. It was just jaw-dropping.' And any viewers who have so far been convinced of Ms Letby's guilt may feel the same way as they watch the brick-by-brick dismantling of the police case. Josh also eloquently recalls the astounding moment in the trial when Ms Letby's original defence offered no expert witnesses to rebut the charges against her. Now such experts have spoken.
Yahoo
03-08-2025
- Yahoo
Lucy Letby was taught to write down darkest thoughts, friend claims in bombshell documentary
A bombshell new documentary on child killer Lucy Letby will offer a new explanation behind a number of scribbled notes written by the nurse which were used as evidence to convict her. Britain's most prolific child serial killer is currently serving 15 whole-life sentences for seven murders and seven attempted murders of babies while working at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Notes such as 'I am evil, I did this' were scrawled on a scrappy notepad found in her house, which also read: 'I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough to care for them and I am a horrible evil person.' 'Hate' was also written in block capitals with heavy ink and circled, while the note is headed: 'Not good enough.' But the notes also included other phrases such as: "I haven't done anything wrong" and "we tried our best and it wasn't enough" The NHS neonatal nurse is currently serving 15 whole life sentences for seven murders and seven attempted murders of babies while working at the Countess of Chester Hospital. According to The Times, a new ITV documentary will put forward a new explanation for the notes, which were presented by the prosecution as amounting to a confession - despite some of the notes appearing to deny her guilt. Dawn is a childhood friend of Letby with whom she studied her A-Levels at Aylestone School in Hereford. The 35-year-old, who did not want her last name to be published, said the pair were taught while in school to write down their most dark thoughts during 'peer-support training sessions' Speaking to the Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt? documentary, she said: 'At all of those training sessions, it was recommended to us that, you know, if you're feeling overwhelmed, you write down everything that's going through your mind that is, you know, troubling you. 'So, all of the dark thoughts, all of those inner voices that you can't silence. You just write it all down on a piece of paper to get it off your mind.' Letby has lost two attempts to challenge her convictions at the Court of Appeal so far, but questions are growing about the safety of Letby's convictions after multiple experts have cast doubts over some of the evidence used in the trial in August 2023. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is reviewing an application by Letby's legal team, which includes a 300-page report from chemical engineer Helen Shannon and professor Geoff Chase, who refute claims made by the prosecution that Letby 'undoubtedly' poisoned two babies by spiking their feeding bags with insulin. Ms Shannon and Prof Chase, who were given access to the babies' medical notes, say they could have been born with specific types of antibodies in their blood which can cause a high reading of insulin. Speaking to the documentary, Ms Shannon said according to The Times: 'What was presented in court as this is smoking-gun evidence of poisoning actually looks pretty typical for a pre-term neonate. 'And we can't see any justification whatsoever for the prosecution statement that it could only be poisoning.' Dawn also tells the documentary about the moment Letby was found guilty: 'I think I was at work when I heard that they were, sort of, returning the verdict, and sort of tuned in and I think I just sat there dumbfounded for a while, not really knowing how to process what I was hearing,' she said. 'I didn't think it was real. I immediately switched to thinking: 'Well, what's next, you know? What happens next? This can't be it. She can't just spend the rest of her life in prison'.'
The Independent
03-08-2025
- The Independent
Lucy Letby was taught to write down darkest thoughts, friend claims in bombshell documentary
A bombshell new documentary on child killer Lucy Letby will offer a new explanation behind a number of scribbled notes written by the nurse which were used as evidence to convict her. Britain's most prolific child serial killer is currently serving 15 whole-life sentences for seven murders and seven attempted murders of babies while working at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Notes such as 'I am evil, I did this' were scrawled on a scrappy notepad found in her house, which also read: 'I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough to care for them and I am a horrible evil person.' 'Hate' was also written in block capitals with heavy ink and circled, while the note is headed: 'Not good enough.' But the notes also included other phrases such as: "I haven't done anything wrong" and "we tried our best and it wasn't enough" The NHS neonatal nurse is currently serving 15 whole life sentences for seven murders and seven attempted murders of babies while working at the Countess of Chester Hospital. According to The Times, a new ITV documentary will put forward a new explanation for the notes, which were presented by the prosecution as amounting to a confession - despite some of the notes appearing to deny her guilt. Dawn is a childhood friend of Letby with whom she studied her A-Levels at Aylestone School in Hereford. The 35-year-old, who did not want her last name to be published, said the pair were taught while in school to write down their most dark thoughts during 'peer-support training sessions' Speaking to the Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt? documentary, she said: 'At all of those training sessions, it was recommended to us that, you know, if you're feeling overwhelmed, you write down everything that's going through your mind that is, you know, troubling you. 'So, all of the dark thoughts, all of those inner voices that you can't silence. You just write it all down on a piece of paper to get it off your mind.' Letby has lost two attempts to challenge her convictions at the Court of Appeal so far, but questions are growing about the safety of Letby's convictions after multiple experts have cast doubts over some of the evidence used in the trial in August 2023. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is reviewing an application by Letby's legal team, which includes a 300-page report from chemical engineer Helen Shannon and professor Geoff Chase, who refute claims made by the prosecution that Letby 'undoubtedly' poisoned two babies by spiking their feeding bags with insulin. Ms Shannon and Prof Chase, who were given access to the babies' medical notes, say they could have been born with specific types of antibodies in their blood which can cause a high reading of insulin. Speaking to the documentary, Ms Shannon said according to The Times: 'What was presented in court as this is smoking-gun evidence of poisoning actually looks pretty typical for a pre-term neonate. 'And we can't see any justification whatsoever for the prosecution statement that it could only be poisoning.' Dawn also tells the documentary about the moment Letby was found guilty: 'I think I was at work when I heard that they were, sort of, returning the verdict, and sort of tuned in and I think I just sat there dumbfounded for a while, not really knowing how to process what I was hearing,' she said. 'I didn't think it was real. I immediately switched to thinking: 'Well, what's next, you know? What happens next? This can't be it. She can't just spend the rest of her life in prison'.'
Daily Mail
03-08-2025
- Daily Mail
'Lucy Letby regularly wept in my arms, asking:"Why are they doing this to me? I've done nothing wrong"': Colleague's TV revelation as dramatic new picture shows nurse at her friend's wedding after police relaxed bail conditions
Lucy Letby wept repeatedly in the arms of a close colleague as she tried to cope with allegations that she was harming babies in her care, a powerful TV documentary will reveal tonight. She had been banned from nursing and sidelined in a backroom job after hospital consultants suggested she was 'purposely harming babies'. At the time, one senior nurse expressed shock at the claims, saying Letby's clinical practice as a neonatal nurse was 'second to none'. She was often accused of being cold and unfeeling during her trial for murder. But she was in fact devastated by the accusations against her, according to Karen Rees, former head of urgent care nursing at the Countess of Chester Hospital where she worked. The bitter, tearful scenes followed suggestions made by consultants at the hospital that Letby was doing harm. 'She was broken, cried regularly in my arms and in my office, and her mantra to me was, 'Why are they doing this to me? I've done nothing wrong',' said Ms Rees. The show also reveals another friend was so sure of her innocence that she sought permission from the authorities to invite Letby to her wedding while she was on bail. Letby was convicted in 2023 of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others. She was sentenced to die in prison. But since then there has been a growing clamour among expert doctors, scientists and statistics experts, who say her trial was unfair, that there are serious doubts about prosecution evidence and that the case should be reopened. Tonight's programme describes how the nurse had believed she had good working relationships with the consultants who denounced her. She was devastated that they thought what they thought. Ms Rees, in her first TV interview, revealed she was given the task of breaking the bad news to Letby that she was being removed from the job she was trained for – the care of newborns – and confined to a humiliating desk job in a back office. Letby had to pretend to colleagues that this was her choice. Ms Rees said: 'I was told just to say that concerns had been raised, and that this was seen as a neutral act. 'She was not being accused of anything at this point. But it seemed safer to take her off clinical practice to protect herself as well as babies on that neonatal unit.' As she was led away from the unit where she had worked, Letby did not even question the decision. 'She was just looking at me,' added Ms Rees. 'I then had to walk her across the hospital grounds. I was the only one making conversation. She wasn't asking me why. She wasn't crying. She was just shocked.' But, said Ms Rees, she cried a lot later. Eventually, after police became involved, Letby was prescribed antidepressants which often suppress moods and emotions. She told her trial in May 2023 she was still taking them and that she had considered suicide at the time she was removed from her job. Ms Rees recalled how Letby once told her: 'You're the only person that hasn't asked me, 'Have I purposely harmed anybody?'.' She said: 'The reason why I never asked her is that I never thought she had. No. I didn't, I don't believe it.' Her revelations are one of several dramatic moments in the documentary Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt? to be shown on ITV this evening. Also interviewed for the show is Dawn – who did not wish her surname to be used. She is a close childhood friend of Letby who has stood by her despite her conviction and is convinced of her innocence. The programme reveals she is so sure that Letby is blameless that she invited the accused nurse to attend her wedding while she was on bail. Dawn also undermines claims that scribbled notes found in Letby's house were any sort of confession. She reveals that, at sixth form college together, both trained in peer-support counselling and learned of a common method to deal with anxieties – to write down your worst fears and feelings. 'If you're feeling overwhelmed, you write down everything that's going through your mind,' she said. And this is what Letby did when undergoing counselling arranged for her by the hospital. Dawn recalled her reaction when she learned her friend was being accused: 'I watched it all unfold and every step of the way I couldn't believe it.' In her darkest moments she wondered if Letby had perhaps inadvertently caused harm, because she was newly-qualified and under heavy pressure. But that was the limit of what she could believe. Dawn was at work when she heard the guilty verdicts and said she could not take them in. 'I sat there dumbfounded for a while, not really knowing how to process what I was hearing. I didn't think it was real. I immediately switched to thinking what happens next? This can't be it, she can't just spend the rest of her life in prison. I'm living a life that Lucy should be living beside me. 'We should both be having families. We'd both bought our houses, and we were looking forward to the next chapter of our lives – and then all this happens. There's so much guilt that I'm living a life that Lucy should also be living.' The striking loyalty of a lifelong friend and a senior colleague are not the only elements of the programme, produced by Anouk Curry, which will shake the beliefs of many in Letby's guilt. It also provides a devastating counter to prosecution claims that babies on the unit were poisoned with insulin. Many on the prosecution side viewed this as the nearest they had to a 'smoking gun' in a trial which lacked any hard evidence. The 'immuno-assay' test used to make this claim was useless for the purpose, according to Matt Johl, an American expert in chemistry and forensic science. 'That kind of test was never meant to put somebody in prison,' he said. 'You would not strip a gold medal from an international athlete on an immuno-assay test. 'It's not good enough for drug testing pilots, or anyone who has mandatory testing. If it's not good enough to fire them, how can it be good enough to put someone in prison?' It also probes the strange contradictions among witnesses. Dr Dewi Evans changed his mind about how Letby was supposed to have killed, when the facts failed to back up his original theory. And Dr Ravi Jayaram did huge damage to Letby's case with his account of her allegedly failing to act to help a sick baby. It was even wrongly claimed she was caught 'virtually red-handed' in this incident. Dr Jayaram's version of events was exploded in an email which surfaced long after the trial. Letby's new barrister Mark McDonald (pictured) is shown in the documentary being questioned outside the CCRC offices in Birmingham by the Daily Mail's Liz Hull, who has covered the case from the beginning Yet he had said in a TV interview that the incident was 'etched on my memory and would live in my nightmares forever'. The programme is aired as the Crown Prosecution Service considers the possibility of fresh charges against Letby. The case has been put before the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which has the power to order an appeal – the courts have so far refused to hear one. Letby's new barrister Mark McDonald is shown in the documentary being questioned outside the CCRC offices in Birmingham by the Daily Mail's Liz Hull, who has covered the case from the beginning. Mr McDonald admits to camera that, despite the involvement of some of the most distinguished doctors in the world, who say no crime was committed, an appeal may yet be refused on a technicality – that the objections to the guilty verdict could have been raised at the original trial, so it was not the court's fault that things went wrong. He asks: 'If they dismiss this evidence, to say 'Well, it could have been called at trial... she's innocent but we are not going to take any notice of it because they could have done that, so we will let an innocent person stay in prison' – well, what is the logic of that?' Professor Neena Modi, a leading expert in the care of newborn babies, concludes: 'It's been deeply disturbing that one can have such a high profile and tremendously important trial that seems to have been conducted with so many flaws.' l Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt? is on ITV1 at 10.20pm
