UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #38

[joe jones]

AFTER she was convicted!!!

Not during the trial which is the discussion we are having.

I know, I wondered how long it would take, my choice of date was deliberate,

 

[Marantz4250b]

I do apologise, I cannot be expected to be perfect all the time, and you don't have to take my word for it, I'm not going looking for DM material anymore it makes me itch, if you think that the DM has never maligned LL you hold onto that thought,
The DM is off topic, and I do like to try to comply with T and C's which is why I never make personal attacks

Can you link to one of my posts where I have said that, or even implied it?

 

[Marantz4250b]

I know, I wondered how long it would take, my choice of date was deliberate,

Sorry?

 

[joe jones]

From a ethical standpoint, though, it is wrong to criticise an outlet without providing evidence of what you are accusing them of doing.

You also mentioned that essentially all the media were putting their own spin (basically acting in contempt of court) so please provide links.

I will say again; regardless of what you think, the DM provided some of the best, perhaps the actual best coverage of the trial while it was underway. The Podcast they produced was unique and is up for an award.

Its an opinion as to whether you think any media organisation did or is doing a good job, not a fact,
And I did listen to podcast,

 

[Sweeper2000]

Including that family was sketchy, as hell, imo. The documentary provided absolutely zero evidence of anything at all relating to them. I'm not saying that they weren't being truthful - I'm sure they were - but it would be a relatively simple task for a journalist to check their facts and to include some details as to whether LL could, or could not have been working so as they could meet.

It also didn't include any details of the medical conditions the child had, what he specifically suffered from at CoCH, what he medical issues he currently has or whether they could be related to anything which might have taken place at the hospital.

That was one of the families who had a knock from the police but were eventually told that the police didn't have enough to go on. Although I Don't remember that being said in the documentary. Is in my post about the paywalled article about the 100 sets of parents who had a knock from the police.

 

[thinker47]

Including that family was sketchy, as hell, imo. The documentary provided absolutely zero evidence of anything at all relating to them. I'm not saying that they weren't being truthful - I'm sure they were - but it would be a relatively simple task for a journalist to check their facts and to include some details as to whether LL could, or could not have been working so as they could meet.

It also didn't include any details of the medical conditions the child had, what he specifically suffered from at CoCH, what he medical issues he currently has or whether they could be related to anything which might have taken place at the hospital.

Exactly so. The child has been told that LL tried to kill him and also, one assumes from the family's interview, that his current medical issues all stem from that one woman's activities. I don't think I'm victim-shaming (since there is no evidence that they actually *were* victims directly) to ask what sort of parent does that to a child? Question 'why can't I be normal?' answer 'You are normal for you, but that woman tried to kill you....' Interviews such as that seem to me to be for shock value only (and/or notoriety) and lend nothing to the facts, one way or another but can certainly lend a lot to the bias, without much justification.

 

[Parker Knoll]

The documentary was poor end of.
It stirred up “ Letby “ in the media but offered absolutely nothing new.
If I never heard her name mentioned again it would be too soon.
She’s in prison for life and she will die in there thank god.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Don't want to say it but I'm kind of getting desperate to hear what the ccrc have to say about MM most recent application. I'm guessing it will be rejected. I think they got it right at the end when they said allot of what Dr Lee said had already been covered at the first trial.

Here's hoping that if it was covered adequately it won't be long before the application is rejected.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Don't want to say it but I'm kind of getting desperate to hear what the ccrc have to say about MM most recent application. I'm guessing it will be rejected. I think they got it right at the end when they said allot of what Dr Lee said had already been covered at the first trial.

Here's hoping that if it was covered adequately it won't be long before the application is rejected.

I think they will reject it. MM hasn't said, specifically, what this starting new evidence is so I very much doubt there is any. It'll just be a rehash of stuff that was already known (whether or not used at the first trial) with a slightly different spin applied to it.

Actually, I suspect that anything the CCRC decides we may not hear about if the CPS level new charges at her. They definitely would wait for the outcome of those matters before they make any statements as to appeals on her existing convictions. I can barely even imagine the absolute legal nightmare that would ensue if she's charged for other offences whilst convictions of a very similar nature are being addressed in the appeal courts. In fact, even if the CCRC decided that her convictions should be referred to the CoA, would they even be allowed to say so under sub-judice rules, I wonder?

 

[Parker Knoll]

I cannot think where this situation has ever come up before to be honest … legal nightmare doesn’t come close !
I think it could be a while before we hear anything from the CCRC - on one hand she deserves absolutely no special expedited treatment as she is a SERIAL KILLER but on the other hand it will shut up the Letby freaks when they toss it out.
I expect rinse and repeat from her “ legal “ team so rejection then re submit somewhere down the line as far as the CCRC - sadly we are far from hearing the last from this tragic case.
There is still ongoing proceedings with the hospital managers and possibly further charges coming her way.
We are never leaving this thread.
JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think they will reject it. MM hasn't said, specifically, what this starting new evidence is so I very much doubt there is any. It'll just be a rehash of stuff that was already known (whether or not used at the first trial) with a slightly different spin applied to it.

Actually, I suspect that anything the CCRC decides we may not hear about if the CPS level new charges at her. They definitely would wait for the outcome of those matters before they make any statements as to appeals on her existing convictions. I can barely even imagine the absolute legal nightmare that would ensue if she's charged for other offences whilst convictions of a very similar nature are being addressed in the appeal courts. In fact, even if the CCRC decided that her convictions should be referred to the CoA, would they even be allowed to say so under sub-judice rules, I wonder?

I too am dubious about anything new from MM. A different diagnosis was maybe his strongest bet so that's why it's important.
They are all very good points. . I very much doubt they would but what if they found the appeal worthy if being granted? Wouldn't they have too then? If her prior convictions are worthy of being considered null then they would surely as her prior would be used in the new trial.

Eta

Or maybe they would just say her priors are in teh process of an appeal at her new trial assuming the appeal didn't delay the new trial by itself.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I too am dubious about anything new from MM. A different diagnosis was maybe his strongest bet so that's why it's important.
They are all very good points. . I very much doubt they would but what if they found the appeal worthy if being granted? Wouldn't they have too then? If her prior convictions are worthy of being considered null then they would surely as her prior would be used in the new trial.

Eta

Or maybe they would just say her priors are in teh process of an appeal at her new trial assuming the appeal didn't delay the new trial by itself.

I don't think the CCRC would reveal their findings either way if there is any likelihood of other charges being brought. For the very reason you mention in the last sentence before your edit; the mere possibility that her convictions (or one or some of them) might be referred back is most certainly something which may adversely affect a jury trial on other charges, especially given that such charges are likely to be of a very similar nature to the ones she's already convicted of. The juries on her original trials had a hard enough job as it was - can you imagine the turmoil if they also had the fact that some previous similar convictions were being call into question!

If there is the chance of her being charged with any other offences then I think that the CCRC will most likely take the course of not even looking at MM's case file until those charges are properly disposed of by whatever means. That could be literally years away!

And, another factor to throw in to the bowl of legal complications - Mark McDonald will be the barrister presenting the MM case and the one defending her at any subsequent trial, one would presume in any event. The legal issues there I can't even begin to fathom. Maybe there are none, but.....?

The CPS has had an evidence file from the police for some time now. I have a feeling that if there are to be any new charges then we'll see them this side of Christmas or early in the new year. Operation Hummingbird is still an active investigation and is costing a fortune, from what we hear. I don't think that would be the case if there were only a small chance of new charges being brought.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Totally agree M
IIRC the term used was “ deep “ into 2025 before we heard anything more on fresh charges.
It’s a legal nightmare.
I do wonder if BM would represent her for the third time if indeed she had charges relating to LWH or if he’s “ busy “
IYKWIM !

JMO.

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1973088323510902810

 

[katydid23]

I can not in all good conscience click once on that website to research for old articles, I only read DM stuff if it is reposted without me having to click on it,
The articles I am sure will still be on there,

Does one click make any noticeable difference in any mathematically meaningful way? It seems negligible and could be done with no real harm, in order to further one's discussion. IMO

 

[katydid23]

I disagree, if Dr Evans. evidence is discredited then the whole case crumbles, as it is he who opines on COD. and from that poisoned tree all the other branches join,
I was utterly appalled at his demonstration of how one could add things to an IV bag, with a doll included in the demonstration,

Why was it appalling that he would show how one could add things to an IV bag?

It has been done before, in real life. So why is it appalling?

 

[Parker Knoll]

Letter from Dewi Evan’s in response to the latest Letby documentary



Murder or Mistake, Channel 4, 29 September 2025


Danny Bogado, Rosy Milner and the Channel 4 team took on a challenging documentary (Murder or Mistake, Channel 4, 29 September 2025). Producing a 2 hours' documentary from evidence that took Cheshire Police several years to collect and led to the longest criminal trial in English legal history is in itself remarkable.


It was a privilege to be considered the chief prosecution witness in a trial that has led to the lifelong incarceration of England's worst female killer. Her conviction would not have succeeded without Cheshire Police's diligence and attention to detail, and the evidence of my fellow independent witnesses and the numerous nurses and doctors from the Countess of Chester Hospital. The evidence of all the witnesses was crucial.


Lucy Letby's new barrister has broken new ground in launching an appeal via press and media, providing of course a very selective version of events. Mark McDonald helpfully summarised 6 issues on his agenda; the rota, the experts, air embolus, insulin, the neonatal unit, and the media. Despite his natural thespian skills and his considerable bravado Mr McDonald and his supporters failed to offer any evidence not disclosed at Letby's trial, or would stand scrutiny at a clinical or scientific presentation or the rigours of cross examination.


The relevance, or not, of the rota, and Letby's presence, has been flogged to death. Peter Elston, statistician and investment manager, just could not understand the difference between information that is statistically significant and that which is clinically significant. Statistics will point you in a certain direction. It does not prove that something took place. It's why statistics did not play a part in the prosecution's case. Presumably it's why the Defence did not seek a statistical explanation either.


Private Eye's Dr Phil Hammond claims credit for exposing the concerns regarding what became the Bristol Heart Scandal. He conveniently overlooks the fact that the same magazine took over 10 years to admit it got it wrong in relation to discredited medic Andrew Wakefield and his flawed MMR / autism claims. His claim that my diagnosis of air embolus was because I "couldn't think of anything else" reflects his clinical limitations, not unexpected given he is best known as a comedian who writes for The Eye. My diagnosis of air embolus was supported by my fellow independent witnesses, belatedly by the Chester paediatricians, and backed up by 18 publications.

Shoo Lee may well be an eminent epidemiologist. His experience of air embolus is limited to reporting 3 cases from the 1980s. More tellingly he has no background of medicolegal matters because "I don't do medico-legal cases. I don't like them". Bogado's programme did not have time to include my detailed critique of his 2 published papers. If his most recent paper (published in December 2024) had been available before the trial its content would have been very useful - for the prosecution. His criticisms of my role, disclosed at the press conference, were all factually incorrect. Summaries from other members of the Panel were awash with errors, some of the weakest reports I have seen during my career.


Given the time constraints it was inevitable that the documentary concentrated on just a couple of cases. The timing of Baby C's collapse created confusion. In my very first report (7 November 2017) I raised concerns regarding the event late on Saturday 13 June 2015 that led to his collapse and death. Over the next 5 years the dates seem to have become confused, leading to the prosecution alleging that the assault took place the previous day. I recognised the confusion at the Trial, reaffirming my original concern that the fatal assault was late on 13 June. I believe that Cheshire Police, the CPS, and the Prosecution team should set the record straight.


Back in 2017, when I first raised concerns regarding Baby C's demise, I was unaware of Letby's presence on the unit, let alone that she was up close to Baby C at the time of his collapse. There is nothing in Baby C's clinical records to confirm Lucy Letby's presence.


Baby O's demise was given considerable attention, and we were presented with some extraordinary explanations from British Columbia based neonatologist Richard Taylor and the Brighton duo of Neil Aiton and Svilena Dimitrova. According to them Baby O's death was due to a cannula inserted into the baby's abdomen 20 - 30 minutes before he died. This fails to explain why the baby was moribund, sadly at death's door, before the cannula was inserted. For good measure Aiton claimed that the ventilator pressures used to resuscitate the baby were too high.


This does not explain why the baby required resuscitation in the first place. He had never required resuscitation following his birth, and his collapse took place when in Lucy Letby's care. The Taylor, Aiton, Dimitrova hypothesis has been widely condemned by others, including a pathologist who gave his opinion on a recent Panorama programme.


Their opinion should be confined to the Donald Trump School of Evidential Science.

The controversy regarding insulin poisoning has been widely explored.


Professor John Gregory recently endorsed (on the same Panorama programme) the opinion of his fellow paediatric endocrinologist Prof Peter Hindmarsh, stating that baby F and baby M were both poisoned with insulin. Insulin poisoning had been accepted by Letby's Defence team at the trial, and indeed by Lucy Letby herself.


Criticism of the neonatal unit building was reasonable, and the unit has long moved to more suitable premises. Alleging that the department was


"failing" or unsatisfactory is unfair and unreasonable. Survival rates, the best quality control of any neonatal unit, were as good in Chester as the ONS [Office of National Statistics] figures for England & Wales, even for the smallest babies. The Thirlwall Inquiry confirmed that staffing was similar to other units in the North West of England.


Mark McDonald and his team failed to show any new evidence that would justify another appeal. Unhelpfully for him, this week's Law Society Gazette article by Bianca Castro (26 September) states:


"Conviction did not uncover anything new, a potential problem if the CCRC [Criminal Cases Review Commission] are to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal."


The victims in the Letby Trial are the babies harmed and murdered by Lucy Letby, and their families. A campaign to release England's worst female serial killer is beyond my understanding. It adds to the hurt and grief the families have suffered for the past decade.


Dr Dewi Evans

 

[Sweeper2000]

Letter from Dewi Evan’s in response to the latest Letby documentary



Murder or Mistake, Channel 4, 29 September 2025


Danny Bogado, Rosy Milner and the Channel 4 team took on a challenging documentary (Murder or Mistake, Channel 4, 29 September 2025). Producing a 2 hours' documentary from evidence that took Cheshire Police several years to collect and led to the longest criminal trial in English legal history is in itself remarkable.


It was a privilege to be considered the chief prosecution witness in a trial that has led to the lifelong incarceration of England's worst female killer. Her conviction would not have succeeded without Cheshire Police's diligence and attention to detail, and the evidence of my fellow independent witnesses and the numerous nurses and doctors from the Countess of Chester Hospital. The evidence of all the witnesses was crucial.


Lucy Letby's new barrister has broken new ground in launching an appeal via press and media, providing of course a very selective version of events. Mark McDonald helpfully summarised 6 issues on his agenda; the rota, the experts, air embolus, insulin, the neonatal unit, and the media. Despite his natural thespian skills and his considerable bravado Mr McDonald and his supporters failed to offer any evidence not disclosed at Letby's trial, or would stand scrutiny at a clinical or scientific presentation or the rigours of cross examination.


The relevance, or not, of the rota, and Letby's presence, has been flogged to death. Peter Elston, statistician and investment manager, just could not understand the difference between information that is statistically significant and that which is clinically significant. Statistics will point you in a certain direction. It does not prove that something took place. It's why statistics did not play a part in the prosecution's case. Presumably it's why the Defence did not seek a statistical explanation either.


Private Eye's Dr Phil Hammond claims credit for exposing the concerns regarding what became the Bristol Heart Scandal. He conveniently overlooks the fact that the same magazine took over 10 years to admit it got it wrong in relation to discredited medic Andrew Wakefield and his flawed MMR / autism claims. His claim that my diagnosis of air embolus was because I "couldn't think of anything else" reflects his clinical limitations, not unexpected given he is best known as a comedian who writes for The Eye. My diagnosis of air embolus was supported by my fellow independent witnesses, belatedly by the Chester paediatricians, and backed up by 18 publications.

Shoo Lee may well be an eminent epidemiologist. His experience of air embolus is limited to reporting 3 cases from the 1980s. More tellingly he has no background of medicolegal matters because "I don't do medico-legal cases. I don't like them". Bogado's programme did not have time to include my detailed critique of his 2 published papers. If his most recent paper (published in December 2024) had been available before the trial its content would have been very useful - for the prosecution. His criticisms of my role, disclosed at the press conference, were all factually incorrect. Summaries from other members of the Panel were awash with errors, some of the weakest reports I have seen during my career.


Given the time constraints it was inevitable that the documentary concentrated on just a couple of cases. The timing of Baby C's collapse created confusion. In my very first report (7 November 2017) I raised concerns regarding the event late on Saturday 13 June 2015 that led to his collapse and death. Over the next 5 years the dates seem to have become confused, leading to the prosecution alleging that the assault took place the previous day. I recognised the confusion at the Trial, reaffirming my original concern that the fatal assault was late on 13 June. I believe that Cheshire Police, the CPS, and the Prosecution team should set the record straight.


Back in 2017, when I first raised concerns regarding Baby C's demise, I was unaware of Letby's presence on the unit, let alone that she was up close to Baby C at the time of his collapse. There is nothing in Baby C's clinical records to confirm Lucy Letby's presence.


Baby O's demise was given considerable attention, and we were presented with some extraordinary explanations from British Columbia based neonatologist Richard Taylor and the Brighton duo of Neil Aiton and Svilena Dimitrova. According to them Baby O's death was due to a cannula inserted into the baby's abdomen 20 - 30 minutes before he died. This fails to explain why the baby was moribund, sadly at death's door, before the cannula was inserted. For good measure Aiton claimed that the ventilator pressures used to resuscitate the baby were too high.


This does not explain why the baby required resuscitation in the first place. He had never required resuscitation following his birth, and his collapse took place when in Lucy Letby's care. The Taylor, Aiton, Dimitrova hypothesis has been widely condemned by others, including a pathologist who gave his opinion on a recent Panorama programme.


Their opinion should be confined to the Donald Trump School of Evidential Science.

The controversy regarding insulin poisoning has been widely explored.


Professor John Gregory recently endorsed (on the same Panorama programme) the opinion of his fellow paediatric endocrinologist Prof Peter Hindmarsh, stating that baby F and baby M were both poisoned with insulin. Insulin poisoning had been accepted by Letby's Defence team at the trial, and indeed by Lucy Letby herself.


Criticism of the neonatal unit building was reasonable, and the unit has long moved to more suitable premises. Alleging that the department was


"failing" or unsatisfactory is unfair and unreasonable. Survival rates, the best quality control of any neonatal unit, were as good in Chester as the ONS [Office of National Statistics] figures for England & Wales, even for the smallest babies. The Thirlwall Inquiry confirmed that staffing was similar to other units in the North West of England.


Mark McDonald and his team failed to show any new evidence that would justify another appeal. Unhelpfully for him, this week's Law Society Gazette article by Bianca Castro (26 September) states:


"Conviction did not uncover anything new, a potential problem if the CCRC [Criminal Cases Review Commission] are to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal."


The victims in the Letby Trial are the babies harmed and murdered by Lucy Letby, and their families. A campaign to release England's worst female serial killer is beyond my understanding. It adds to the hurt and grief the families have suffered for the past decade.


Dr Dewi Evans

Is that twitter P? Interesting it raises a spotlight on what this thread has been saying.

 

[Parker Knoll]

It’s gone out to various journalists sweep.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Their opinion should be confined to the Donald Trump School of Evidential Science.