New evidence has emerged indicating more babies were harmed during Lucy Letby’s care, including one incident involving insulin poisoning. The troubling revelations bring renewed scrutiny to the case of the former nurse, who was convicted of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital's neonatal unit. Letby's actions reportedly spanned from June 2015 to June 2016, and following her conviction, she was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Documents obtained by the BBC’s Panorama program suggest another baby may have been poisoned hours after Letby took over their care. Medical records indicate significant drops in blood sugar levels coupled with unusually high insulin detected in tests undertaken on this infant. Such findings raise serious alarms over Letby's commitment to her role, prompting questions about why she continued working with vulnerable patients.
P reports from the inquiry reveal troubling statistics, showing near one-third of Letby’s shifts during her training at Liverpool Women's Hospital included potentially life-threatening incidents for infants. This alarming trend persisted even when nursing protocols would typically insist on higher vigilance to safeguard their delicate conditions.
Letby, 33, was first sentenced to prison this past August, after her conviction for the seven murders and the attempted murders was upheld. An additional trial saw her convicted of attempting to murder another infant. Despite these serious charges, her legal team has continuously denied these allegations, claiming inconsistencies and errors throughout the investigation and legal processes.
The presentation of new evidence has sparked conversations around the medical statistics and data presented during her first trial, with various experts questioning their integrity. Some statisticians and medical professionals have expressed concerns about the foundation of the prosecution’s case, leading them to call for possible re-examination of the charges based on this new evidence.
Among the most shocking discoveries reported by Panorama were findings about the three infants under Letby’s care. Blood work from one infant taken shortly after she began her shift showed dangerously low blood sugar levels. Before Letby arrived, the infant’s levels were normal, raising questions about her role just after she was assigned the infant. The lab results revealed high levels of insulin, which led some medical experts to wonder whether this abnormally high reading could be attributed to congenital hyperinsulinism, which is known for causing excessive natural insulin production.
Experts noted, though, such extraordinarily high insulin levels, coupled with low levels of C-peptide, point to unusual circumstances. The C-peptide and insulin levels should typically be inversely proportional if they stem from natural production. A number of specialists consulted pointed out the improbability of such lab results being incorrect, especially within the same time frame and under similar conditions.
Adding to the complexity, the concerns expressed by several consultants earlier on had significantly built up as they began seeing patterns linking Letby's presence on the ward to the rising number of unexpected fatalities. Ironically, the head of nursing at the time had believed the concerns were influenced by personal biases from two doctors rather than based on solid evidence. This notion was noted during the inquiry led by Lady Justice Thirlwall, examining the detailed processes and protocols surrounding Letby's time on the neonatal unit.
Karen Rees, the nursing manager at the Countess of Chester, admitted during testimony to having become too personally involved with Letby. Even after being alerted to the reports questioning Letby’s connections to the deaths, Rees continued to publicly support Letby, stating how “immoral” she believed it was to remove her from her duties as they awaited clarity on the matter. Text messages presented during the inquiry showed how Rees expressed continued support with phrases like “hang on, we are all behind you” and “we will get through this.” Such revelations have left many questioning how the safety of vulnerable infants was compromised.
From the inquiry, nurses expressed conflicting feelings over Letby’s actions. Some believed there was no justification for concern, reflecting the mindset of several professionals involved at the time. They focused primarily on treating the observable conditions of the babies rather than pursuing underlying patterns linking their deteriorations to the attending nurse.
Previous evidence from the inquiry showed nurses speaking favorably about Letby, calling her “the crème de la crème” of nursing students. This perception starkly contrasts the accounts from many doctors who felt compelled to signal alarms over unexpected issues arising on the neonatal unit. Panorama suggests Letby's unchanging presence during such deteriorations directed more blame and attention toward her actions rather than the broader institutional failings.
The commission, which will continue to investigate the events staff failed to connect during Letby’s tenure, is set to conclude by late autumn 2025. With things still unraveling and new evidence arriving, the inquiry meshes with voices from the families impacted by the deaths of their infants, adding layers to this complex case involving nursing ethics and hospital protocol.
Finally, Rees has expressed her regrets throughout the testimonies, stating she felt tension between the nursing staff's sentiments and the urgency needed to act decisively. This reflects not only on the dynamics between staff but also highlights the complexity surrounding the systemic failings which allowed such tragedy to occur. The outcome of the inquiry continues to shape how hospitals respond to allegations of malpractice, with ramifications echoing throughout the NHS.
