New evidence ‘blows case out the water’, says barrister for Lucy Letby
THE CASE against convicted child killer Lucy Letby has been “completely demolished” by new expert medical evidence, her barrister has claimed, as a series of fresh reports were handed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
Letby, 35, of Hereford, is currently serving 15 whole-life orders after being convicted across two trials at Manchester Crown Court of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.
But on Thursday (Apr 3), her barrister Mark McDonald told reporters that a raft of new expert reports had cast serious doubt on the safety of her convictions.
Speaking outside the CCRC’s Birmingham offices, he said: “Today I’ve put in 23 expert reports from 24 experts from eight countries. These reports show that no crime was committed. This blows the case out the water.”
Mr McDonald submitted findings from an international panel of 14 neonatologists and paediatricians, along with a separate report from seven other medical professionals, including endocrinologists and forensic toxicologists, challenging the reliability of insulin test results used in the trial.
Among the key claims made:
- Insulin test results from two infants, which were central to the prosecution case, were “unreliable” and could have been affected by antibodies that interfere with testing.
- Several infants thought to have been deliberately harmed showed signs of natural causes or poor medical care.
- In multiple cases, there was no evidence to support the prosecution’s claims of air embolism or intentional overfeeding.
Mr McDonald said Letby now had “a new hope”, adding: “I’m absolutely confident that the expert evidence that has appeared post-conviction totally undermines the safety of the conviction. I’m very confident that we’re going to get back to the Court of Appeal.”
Panel findings: No crimes committed
The international medical panel reviewed the circumstances surrounding the 17 babies whose cases formed the basis of Letby’s prosecution. It concluded that no criminal acts had occurred and attributed the deaths and collapses to a combination of natural causes and failings in clinical care.
Notable findings include:
- Child A: Said to have died from an air embolism caused by an injection. The panel found no evidence of air embolism and attributed death to thrombosis.
- Child B: Allegedly an attempted murder by air injection. Panel concluded collapse was due to thrombosis.
- Child C: Said to have died from air in the stomach via feeding tube. The panel attributed death to undiagnosed small bowel obstruction and ineffective resuscitation.
- Child D: Allegedly killed by air embolism. Panel said death was caused by sepsis, pneumonia, and disseminated intravascular coagulation, exacerbated by lack of antibiotics.
- Child E: Prosecution cited air embolism and deliberate bleeding. The panel said bleeding likely stemmed from a congenital condition or oxygen deprivation before birth.
- Child F: Allegedly poisoned with insulin. The panel found insulin levels normal for a pre-term baby and blamed prolonged hypoglycaemia due to poor medical management.
- Child G: Said to be overfed and given air via feeding tube. Panel found no evidence of overfeeding or air injection; deterioration due to infection.
- Child H: Cleared on one count, jury undecided on another. The panel attributed oxygen desaturations to mishandled tension pneumothorax.
- Child I: Allegedly murdered with air injections. Panel found death due to respiratory distress syndrome and chronic lung disease.
- Child J: Jury could not reach a verdict. Panel said deterioration was caused by sepsis, not malicious interference.
- Child K: Allegedly had breathing tube dislodged. Panel said no such dislodgement occurred, and clinical decline was due to an undersized endotracheal tube.
- Child L: Said to have been poisoned with insulin. Panel found no evidence of deliberate insulin use.
- Child M: Allegedly attacked like his twin. Panel cited sepsis or heart condition as cause of collapse.
- Child N: Claimed air injection and throat trauma. Panel found no embolism; deterioration linked to haemophilia or complications during care.
- Child O: Allegedly injected with air and suffered liver trauma. Panel said death was caused by traumatic delivery and resulting internal bleeding.
- Child P: Allegedly murdered like his brother. Panel concluded a collapsed lung led to death, which was poorly managed.
- Child Q: Jury could not reach a verdict. Panel said decline was likely due to early signs of gastrointestinal disease or sepsis, not malicious acts.
Insulin tests questioned
A separate report submitted by seven specialists raised concerns about the reliability of insulin tests used in the original trial. They claimed the testing method could produce falsely high results due to antibodies, and that jurors were misled on key medical and evidential facts.
The group included two consultant neonatologists, a paediatric endocrinologist, and a retired forensic toxicology professor. Their report argued that crucial information on insulin testing procedures was not presented to the jury.
Families and inquiry response
Lawyers for the families of the victims have previously dismissed the international panel’s conclusions, calling them “full of analytical holes” and a “rehash” of arguments rejected during trial.
Meanwhile, Lady Justice Thirlwall is set to publish the findings of the public inquiry into how Letby was able to commit her alleged crimes in November.
In submissions to the inquiry, KC Richard Baker raised concerns on behalf of families about the public presentation of medical evidence through media conferences.
Cheshire Constabulary confirmed it is continuing to review baby deaths and collapses that occurred at both the Countess of Chester and Liverpool Women’s Hospitals during Letby’s employment between 2012 and 2016.
Letby has already lost two appeals—one in May and another in October last year. The CCRC is now reviewing the new submissions to decide whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
