Medical experts challenge evidence in Lucy Letby convictions
A panel of international medical experts has presented what they claim is “significant new evidence” casting doubt on the convictions of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby. Letby, 35, is currently serving 15 whole life prison sentences after being convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others between June 2015 and June 2016 while working at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
At a press conference in central London, the panel, led by retired medic Dr. Shoo Lee, argued that some of the infant deaths previously attributed to Letby were actually caused by natural factors or inadequate medical care. Dr. Lee, who co-authored a 1989 academic study on air embolism in newborns, stated that a team of 14 independent experts had compiled an “impartial, evidence-based report” reassessing the case.
Opening the conference, MP Sir David Davis, who has been supporting Letby’s legal team, described her convictions as “one of the major injustices of modern times.” Dr. Lee expressed sympathy for the families affected, emphasizing that the panel’s work aimed to uncover the truth rather than cause further distress. He stated unequivocally, “We did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury was due to natural causes or just bad medical care.”
The claims of medical negligence rather than deliberate harm stand in contrast to the findings of Letby’s trial, where the prosecution argued that she injected air into the babies’ bodies through intravenous lines or feeding tubes. Prosecutors had referenced Dr. Lee’s 1989 study to support this theory, though the expert now contends that key evidence, such as skin discoloration noted on some of the babies, was misinterpreted by the prosecution.
Meanwhile, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has confirmed that Letby’s legal team has submitted an application to review her case as a potential miscarriage of justice. The CCRC, which investigates possible wrongful convictions, stated that they had received a preliminary application and had begun assessing whether new evidence provided a reasonable chance of overturning the conviction.
A spokesperson for the CCRC acknowledged the public scrutiny surrounding the case but stressed that their role was not to determine innocence or guilt, as that responsibility lies with the courts. The body will now review the evidence to determine if it meets the threshold for a full appeal.
Dr. Lee, describing the panel of experts as a “dream team” in neonatology, insisted that their qualifications made them uniquely positioned to assess the case. He reiterated that the panel’s findings challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence, particularly regarding the role of air embolism in the babies’ deaths.
Letby has already lost two appeals against her convictions. In May and October of last year, she challenged the verdicts, citing fresh evidence from Dr. Lee, but both appeals were dismissed. Senior judges ruled that prosecution experts had not relied solely on skin discoloration as proof of air embolism and upheld the original verdicts.
As the CCRC assesses the new evidence, Letby’s legal team and supporters continue to push for a full review of her convictions, arguing that misinterpretations of medical data may have led to one of the most controversial legal outcomes in recent history.