Fresh doubts have been raised about the trial of convicted child serial killer Lucy Letby after claims the jury was misled over key evidence. Letby’s legal team is set to announce what it claims is “new medical evidence” from a panel of 14 international neonatal experts, led by Conservative MP Sir David Davis. Notably, the panel includes retired neonatologist Dr. Shoo Lee, who contends his research was misused to secure Letby’s conviction.
Letby, from Hereford, is currently serving 15 whole-life orders after being found guilty of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder eight others between June 2015 and June 2016 at the Countess of Chester Hospital. She is only the fourth woman in UK history to receive such a sentence.
According to reports by The i Paper, concerns have been voiced by numerous neonatal specialists over how the evidence was utilized against Letby during her trial. Sir David Davis recently indicated to Parliament his belief the conviction amounts to a “clear miscarriage of justice.” He alleged key evidence beneficial to Letby was withheld by both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Newly uncovered police notes reveal discrepancies between the initial analyses of suspicious incidents at the Countess of Chester Hospital and what was eventually presented to the jury. The prosecution relied heavily on statistical correlations, portraying Letby as the “common denominator” among incidents of unexplained infant deaths and collapses.
Dr. Dewi Evans, the chief prosecution witness, initially examined 28 cases of babies who had collapsed or died under suspicious circumstances. Notably, it emerged Letby was absent for ten of these incidents, over one-third of the cases. Yet, jurors were not informed of this significant detail, raising questions about the integrity of the prosecution's case.
The prosecution also cited Dr. Shoo Lee’s 1989 academic paper as evidence, claiming Letby had killed the babies by injecting them with air, which would lead to air embolism. Dr. Lee has since voiced his discontent at how this research was interpreted during the trial. He plans to attend the upcoming press conference to present findings from the independent review conducted by his panel of experts.
“I don’t usually do medical legal cases. I just don’t enjoy them, so I don’t do them. But this one got me interested because they had used my paper,” stated Dr. Lee, indicating frustration over the use of his research to convict Letby. After reviewing court transcripts, he felt compelled to clarify, “What they were actually presenting wasn’t exactly what I said.”
Dr. Lee is expected to argue during the press conference on February 4, 2024, against the appropriateness of diagnosing air embolism for the infants involved, asserting the rarity of such conditions and claiming diagnostic descriptions presented during the trial did not match the expected profiles.
Meanwhile, Letby’s barrister, Mark McDonald, highlighted discrepancies concerning Dr. Evans’ reliability as an expert witness. He contended evidence put forth by Dr. Evans was potentially flawed, leading the team to seek another review of Letby’s case, implying the judgment was unsafe.
Evans has staunchly defended his work, countering the accusations: “Mr. McDonald’s observations are unsubstantiated and unfounded.” Such defenses come amid rising tension as calls for Letby's case to be revisited gain traction.
David Davis, along with others, have advocated for Letby’s exoneration. He bluntly stated, “If, as I believe it will, a retrial clears Lucy Letby, she will be released in her 30s, not her 50s.” His comments echo growing public belief, fueled by new evidence and expert doubts questioning the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative.
Cheshire Police have refrained from participating much within the public discourse, citing the respect and focus owed to the families affected by these tragic events. They maintain, “Every story published, statement made, or comment posted can impede the course of justice.”
Dr. Evans, on the other hand, reiterated his commitment to the conclusions he reached as part of the case, but is facing increasing scrutiny as the narrative around the trial evolves.
This complex legal situation, devoid of direct evidence or eyewitness testimony against Letby, has led to comparisons with other infamous miscarriages of justice in UK history, igniting passionate discussions about judicial integrity.
Lucy Letby stands accused, yet the shadows of doubt now loom large over her conviction, more evident as her legal team confidently prepares to present new findings. The coming days are pivotal as they may not only reshape Letby’s fate but also raise fundamental questions about the reliability of expert testimonies and evidentiary standards within the judicial system.