Until recently, supporters of Lucy Letby, who believe in her innocence, were not quick to trust the medical establishment.
They were more likely to dismiss expert opinions, instead turning to podcasts, niche websites, and social media platforms to form their own conclusions.
The prevailing sentiment was one of skepticism towards doctors, judges, and even Letby’s own former lawyer, who they felt was ineffective in defending her.
These advocates would argue that the experts called to testify during the trials didn’t understand the nuances of Letby’s case, and even the lead expert witness for the prosecution, a retired doctor, had lost credibility.
But everything changed after one press conference.
The Turnaround: Letby’s New Legal Team and the Emergence of Professor Shoo Lee
This shift in perspective can be traced back to a press conference organized by Letby’s new lawyer, Mark McDonald. At this event, Professor Shoo Lee, a retired neonatologist, played a central role.
Lee, who had once contributed to research that was cited in the conviction, now became a vocal advocate for Letby’s innocence.
His team of experts, which included other prominent doctors, questioned the validity of several key charges against Letby.
They argued that the deaths and collapses of babies attributed to her were not murder or attempted murder at all, but were likely due to medical errors or other factors.
Lee’s supporters quickly pointed out his credentials, touting his reputation as a leading figure in neonatology.
They were equally quick to disparage the medical professionals who had testified in the original trials, painting them as misinformed and out of touch with current medical standards.
Professor Lee’s Role in Letby’s Appeal: Unraveling the Case Against Her
Professor Lee’s role is especially significant because of his involvement in the very research that helped convict Letby.
One of his studies from 1989 examined air embolism in newborns, a condition that was cited during the trial to explain the unusual rashes seen on some of the babies who collapsed. But Lee disagrees with this interpretation.
According to him, the rashes were not linked to air embolism, contrary to what some of the original experts had suggested.
Despite his credentials and new findings, Lee’s arguments failed to sway the judges during the appeal in July 2024.
They concluded that the presence or absence of the rashes had not been decisive in the original trial, and there was sufficient evidence to convict Letby.
The judges also rejected Lee’s appeal for a re-examination of the case, leaving Letby’s legal team in a difficult position.
The Growing Defense Team: New Evidence and Alternative Explanations
In the wake of the failed appeal, Professor Lee’s team of experts continued to work on Letby’s behalf.
They produced a report detailing alternative explanations for seven of the murders and attempted murders that Letby was convicted of.
They have promised further reports on the remaining deaths and will be submitting their findings to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which is the only remaining avenue for challenging Letby’s conviction.
The credibility of Lee’s team is undeniable. Many of the experts involved are highly regarded in their fields, and their findings could provide a fresh perspective on the case.
However, it remains unclear whether they had access to all the same information as the experts who testified in the original trials.
The Role of Dr. Dewi Evans: A Key Figure in Letby’s Conviction
Letby’s supporters often point to Dr. Dewi Evans, the retired paediatrician who was the prosecution’s key expert witness, as the sole architect of her conviction.
However, Evans’ analysis was not done in isolation.
It was reviewed and approved by other eminent doctors, including the late Dr. Martin Ward Platt, a renowned neonatologist.
Additionally, his findings were tested in court by a range of other specialists, including forensic pathologists, paediatric radiologists, and neonatologists.
The challenge for Letby’s defense is that they are up against an established body of expert testimony, including evidence from doctors who had firsthand experience with the infants in question.
As we delve deeper into the ongoing legal battle, the question becomes not just one of medical expertise but one of credibility, as both sides present their cases with passionate arguments.
The Complexities of Legal Strategy and Expert Testimony
A key aspect of Letby’s case is her decision not to call any medical experts during her original trial.
Instead, she relied on a defense strategy that focused on hospital issues, such as a faulty drainage system.
This choice, while unconventional, has raised questions about whether it was the right move.
Had Letby brought in her own experts, the trial could have turned into a battle of competing testimonies, potentially leading to confusion and a lack of clarity for the jury.
Yet, even without expert medical witnesses for her defense, Letby’s case was not simply a matter of what the medical professionals testified to.
In fact, a major element in the case was the eye-witness testimony of Dr. Ravi Jayaram, who claimed to have seen Letby standing over a baby during a medical emergency, with the baby’s tube dislodged and alarms muted.
This was a key moment in securing Letby’s conviction, as it provided direct evidence of her involvement in one of the alleged incidents.
Reevaluating Evidence: The Insulin Test and Hypoglycemia
A major point of contention in the case revolves around an insulin test administered to Baby F, one of the babies Letby was accused of harming.
The defense initially argued that the test results, which showed high insulin levels, were inaccurate.
However, in Lee’s recent report, his team affirmed that the test was correct, although they attempted to explain the results differently, claiming that the readings were within the expected range.
This interpretation has raised eyebrows, particularly when compared to the testimony of Dr. Anna Milan, a clinical scientist who reviewed the results during the Thirlwall Inquiry.
According to Milan, Baby F’s insulin-to-C-peptide ratio was completely off the charts, a clear sign of synthetic insulin being administered.
This significant discrepancy continues to be a point of disagreement between the two sides and could have a profound impact on the outcome of the case.
Discrepancies and Confusion: The Case of Baby D
Another area of confusion surrounds the case of Baby D, who was initially reported to be improving despite her pneumonia.
According to some of the medical experts involved in the trial, Baby D was showing signs of recovery, but after Letby’s involvement, she tragically deteriorated.
However, when Letby texted a colleague about the baby’s death, her message seemed to suggest surprise, as she had been told that Baby D was improving.
The conflicting reports and differing interpretations of the same events raise important questions about the credibility of the evidence and the testimony presented during the trial.
While expert opinions may vary, the question remains whether the doctors involved in Letby’s prosecution were fully aware of all the facts.
The Future of Letby’s Appeal: Will New Evidence Change the Outcome?
With the publication of the latest reports from Professor Lee and his team, Letby’s supporters are hopeful that new evidence might lead to a reexamination of the case.
But there is significant skepticism surrounding the validity of these claims, especially given the strong foundation of expert testimony that supported Letby’s conviction.
Legal experts have pointed out that the Court of Appeal is unlikely to entertain arguments that simply rehash old evidence or repurpose claims that have already been dismissed.
Ultimately, Letby’s case may hinge not on the facts themselves but on how they are presented in the court of public opinion.
As the legal battle continues, the question remains whether the criminal justice system will yield to the pressure from Letby’s supporters or maintain the conviction that has so far stood firm against all attempts to overturn it.
The Unlikely Narrative of a Scapegoat: The Absurdity of the Argument
The idea that Lucy Letby is an innocent scapegoat, wrongfully convicted in a grand conspiracy, is a difficult narrative to swallow.
To accept this theory, one would have to believe in an elaborate, improbable series of events—doctors conspiring to shift blame, a nurse who just happened to be present at every suspicious incident, and a hospital that went to extraordinary lengths to cover up its own failings.
It’s a narrative that stretches credibility, especially given the evidence that links Letby directly to the deaths and collapses of multiple babies.
The suggestion that an entire group of doctors acted out of malice or fear is an implausible scenario, one that seems increasingly unlikely as more evidence continues to surface.
For now, Letby remains in prison, with her defenders continuing to fight for her release.
Whether the Court of Appeal will uphold her conviction or allow her a second chance remains to be seen.