‘Did not find any murders’: Top doctors question conviction of UK ‘Killer Nurse’

Lee, who lives in Canada, became aware of Letby’s case after her conviction. The prosecution, in making its case, had relied heavily on a 1989 research paper that Lee coauthored, and her defence team wrote to him to ask if he would review the case.
He concluded that the prosecution’s expert witness had misinterpreted his research, and later proposed chairing a panel of neonatal specialists to provide an impartial analysis of the causes of death or injury of all the babies. The experts had access to all available medical records and witness statements related to the babies, and they delivered their assessment pro bono. Although Letby was originally charged with harming 17 babies, two juries ultimately found her guilty in the murder or attempted murder of 14.
The report by the International Expert Panel is given out during a press conference to announce “new medical evidence” from an international panel of neonatologists in connection with the conviction of British nurse Lucy Letby, in London.Credit: AP
Major questions about the case were first raised in a 13,000-word New Yorker article in May last year. Since then, dozens of experts in neonatology and statistics have raised concerns about the evidence and argued that there might have been a miscarriage of justice.
The Countess of Chester Hospital, when contacted for comment about the new allegations, said the hospital was focused on the ongoing police investigations and a public inquiry related to the case.
That inquiry has proceeded on the basis that Letby is guilty, considering questions such as whether the hospital failed to protect babies from her because of its culture and management.
One senior doctor told the inquiry that at the time of the deaths, the unit, which cared for premature or seriously unwell infants, was “almost at breaking point” because of staffing shortages. And an earlier regulator’s assessment had warned of chronic understaffing, and said the unit lacked the resources to care for babies requiring strict infection control.
Dr Shoo Lee: “In summary, ladies and gentlemen, we did not find any murders.”Credit: Getty Images
Lee’s panel included specialists from Britain, Canada, Germany, Japan, Sweden and the United States. When they embarked on their investigation, Lee said, they were clear that the report would be released whether the findings were favourable or unfavourable for Letby.
Lee’s 1989 academic paper looked into air embolisms in the bloodstreams of babies and noted that some babies showed signs of skin discoloration – a finding cited by Dr Dewi Evans, the prosecution’s lead expert witness in the Letby case. Evans argued that some of the babies who died or deteriorated had exhibited similar patterns on their skin, and that, therefore, the babies must have been injected with air by Letby.
But Lee gave evidence in one of Letby’s attempts to appeal, telling a hearing that Evans had misinterpreted his findings about what could lead to skin discoloration, and that none of the babies should have been diagnosed with air embolism. But the court said his evidence would not be heard, arguing that Letby’s defence team should have called Lee in the original trial.
Evans has stood by his evidence, and he told The Times of London this past weekend that he was “very concerned people are getting their facts wrong.”
Loading
During the briefing, Lee gave a summary of the panel’s detailed findings, and highlighted a few of the cases. The report underlined the serious preexisting conditions of some of the babies, as many were born prematurely or with health issues.
In the case of “Baby 1”, whom prosecutors alleged was killed by Letby by injecting air into the infant’s veins, the panel determined the cause of death to be thrombosis from an existing issue.
In the case of “Baby 11”, the prosecution had argued that Letby had deliberately dislodged a breathing tube. But the experts said there was no evidence to support that claim. They argued instead that an initial attempt by a consultant doctor to resuscitate the baby had been “traumatic and poorly supervised”, that the wrong equipment had been used and that the doctor “didn’t understand the basics” of how mechanical ventilation equipment worked.
“It was just that the consultant didn’t know what he was doing,” Lee said in summation.
Dr Neena Modi, a member of the panel and a neonatology professor at Imperial College London, said “there was a combination of babies being delivered in the wrong place, delayed diagnosis and inappropriate or absent treatment.”
Also present at Tuesday’s briefing was David Davis, a Conservative MP who has become a champion for Letby’s cause, raising her case in parliament and calling for a retrial.
Letby lost two separate attempts last year to appeal her convictions. In December, her lawyer, Mark McDonald, said he would ask the Court of Appeal to review them.
On Tuesday, he said he had also applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is responsible for investigating claims of miscarriages of justice. He noted that he had shared the evidence with Letby, and, while he declined to share further details of her state of mind, he said, “She has hope, and that’s all I can say.”
“There is overwhelming evidence that the conviction is unsafe,” McDonald said.
The commission confirmed that it had received a request to look at the case, but it was unclear how long that would take.
“We are aware that there has been a great deal of speculation and commentary surrounding Lucy Letby’s case, much of it from parties with only a partial view of the evidence,” a spokesperson for the body said, adding that the families affected by the events should be kept in mind.
It is not for the commission to “determine innocence or guilt in a case,” the spokesperson noted. “That’s a matter for the courts.”
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.