I was sure Lucy Letby was guilty… then spent weeks poring over evidence & now I'm convinced NO babies were murdered
'NHS SCAPEGOAT' I was sure Lucy Letby was guilty… then spent weeks poring over evidence & now I'm convinced NO babies were murdered
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
SHE'S Britain's most prolific child killer, serving 15 whole life orders for the sickening murders of seven innocent babies and attempting to kill seven others.
And last week it emerged Lucy Letby could be facing more charges over the deaths of babies at hospitals she worked at.
8
Killer nurse Lucy Letby could face even more charges but some question her guilt
Credit: pixel8000
8
Sun man Oliver Harvey thinks Letby has been let down by the legal system
Credit: Peter Jordan
Letby, 35, is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women's Hospital - where she trained as a student - between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said it had received "a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women's Hospital".
It comes after three people - who were in senior leadership roles at the Countess of Chester Hospital - were arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter as part of an investigation into the baby deaths.
But while evidence continues to stack up against her, there are also a growing number of people - including some prominent politicians - who have publicly expressed doubts over her guilt.
Yesterday we told how journalist Nigel Bunyan, who attended Lucy Letby's main trial and the retrial that followed it, is convinced justice was served because Letby is "a nailed-on serial killer of tiny, defenceless babies".
But The Sun's Chief Features Writer Oliver Harvey is in the opposite camp, concerned "an innocent young woman has been jailed in one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British legal history".
Here he puts forward his argument for why he's convinced Lucy Letby is not guilty of her harrowing crimes, and why a fresh appeal is needed immediately.
STARING at Lucy Letby's washed out mugshot on the day of her conviction, I believed she was a wicked baby killer.
Justice was done, I assumed, so let this monster rot in hell. Hadn't the 'Angel of Death' even admitted her own guilt in scrawled notes?
Months later, after being commissioned to write an article about Letby 'truthers' - the internet army of sleuths pleading her innocence - I did a deep dive into the evidence stacked against her.
Top doc whose work was used to nail Letby reveals why he KNOWS she's innocent
Much of it involves complex medical and statistical information. It required strong coffee, a string of late nights and expert advice.
Now, I believe an innocent young woman has been jailed in one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British legal history.
And, in my view, no babies were murdered or harmed at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
Last week prosecutors revealed they were considering fresh charges against Letby - currently rotting in prison as she serves 15 life sentences.
Cheshire Police have been investigating further 'deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies'.
8
Staring at Lucy Letby's washed out mugshot on the day of her conviction, Oliver believed she was a wicked baby killer
Credit: PA
8
The writer has since changed his mind after being commissioned to write an article about Letby 'truthers'
Credit: PA
So why do I believe Letby - already caged for murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others - has been wrongfully convicted?
And could two jury trials and two Appeal Court hearings really have misread things so badly?
A solemn truth is that English justice - long admired across the world - sometimes gets it wrong.
After nearly 30 years working in Fleet Street, including reporting for a news agency at the Old Bailey and the High Court, I've witnessed my share of wrongful convictions firsthand.
I saw the Bridgewater Three - James Robinson and cousins Vincent and Michael Hickey - emerge blinking in the sunlight after 18 years behind bars for a crime they didn't commit.
After nearly 30 years working in Fleet Street, including reporting for a news agency at the Old Bailey and the High Court, I've witnessed my share of wrongful convictions firsthand
Oliver Harvey
Wrongly convicted for murdering 13-year-old paperboy Carl Bridgewater, James spoke of the 'long, lonely years that we've cried and wept' as 'people have looked at us with hate' and 'called us child-killers'.
Words delivered with such raw emotion stay with you.
Then there was Angela Cannings, wrongly convicted of murdering two of her babies.
During her 18-months incarceration I got to know her salt-of-the-earth husband Terry.
Visiting him at home in Salisbury, Wiltshire, he told me: 'The trial was horrific, I don't know how Angela coped.
"After she was jailed I just sobbed and sobbed on my sofa.'
Angela's conviction was overturned by the Appeal Court in 2003 after it emerged medical evidence against her was flawed and that her babies had actually perished from cot death.
8
Angela Cannings was wrongly convicted of killing her children and freed by the court of appeal
Credit: Reuters
8
The Bridgewater Three were wrong convicted of murder
Credit: PA:Press Association
It's a pertinent example of how police, prosecutors and juries can get it wrong when dealing with complex medical issues.
I believe evidence used to convict Letby was also catastrophically flawed and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
A central plank of the prosecution case - placed before the jury at the beginning of Letby's first 10-month trial - was an apparently damning shift rota.
The chart showed a cluster of 25 suspicious baby deaths and collapses matched against the shift rota of the 38 nurses who worked on the unit.
Only Letby was at the scene for every death and collapse.
Yet the jury wasn't told about six other baby deaths in the period for which she faced no charges.
Statisticians also say the chart covers far too narrow a period of time.
Professor Richard Gill, whose expertise is medical statistics, told me the spreadsheet was 'ludicrous' and that he believes Letby is innocent.
Fatal flaws
8
MP David Davis has come out in support of Letby as has retired medic Dr Shoo Lee
Credit: Ben Whitley/PA Wire
8
Dr Dewi testified that Letby had injected insulian or air into bloodstreams or feeding tubes
Credit: PA
When a case has been built around what the professor says are flawed statistics, then I believe the whole evidential edifice starts to crumble.
So what about the science?
Expert witness Dr Dewi Evans said that on the majority of occasions babies were killed or harmed, Letby injected air or insulin into their bloodstreams or feeding tubes.
A string of respected neonatologists called Dr Evans's theory that Letby injected air into babies via their nasal feeding tubes as 'implausible' and 'ridiculous'.
Dr Evans had cited a 1989 academic paper which said skin discolourations occur with air bubbles in blood vessels, and he believed this was evident in several of the babies.
But the paper's co-author, Dr Shoo Lee says none of the descriptions of the babies' skin blemishes given by witnesses matched those that he had noted.
In February, Dr Lee chaired a panel of 14 leading international experts who had examined 17 cases at the heart of Letby's prosecution.
Their conclusion?
"We did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care," he revealed.
Remember Letby - who has always pleaded her innocence - was never seen injecting a baby or harming them in any way.
That Letby's case is likely to rumble on for years is heartbreaking for the bereaved families
Oliver Harvey
Police found no internet searches for her alleged murder techniques while no motive or psychological profile of a serial killer was ever presented to the court.
And Letby's so-called confessions notes - in which she'd written, 'I'm evil I did this' - were scrawls produced on the advice of counsellors to help the nurse deal with extreme stress.
The ramblings also included: 'WHY ME? I haven't done anything wrong.'
They were written as part of her therapy after she was removed from her nursing duties following a cluster of baby deaths.
Used as a 'gotcha' moment at her first trial, the 'I'm evil I did this' sentiment may simply have been her insecurity at so many babies dying on her ward.
Letby also kept 257 confidential shift handover sheets from the ward under her bed. Twenty-one of the documents related to 13 children prosecutors said she had harmed.
Campaigner and former Cabinet Minister David Davis told me: 'If you didn't know that she was accused of murder, you'd just think she was being excessively conscientious.'
Revelations that she searched bereaved families on Facebook perhaps shows she was concerned for those grieving.
It certainly doesn't amount to evidence she was a baby killer.
The Countess of Chester - which treated critically ill and very premature babies clinging to life - was plagued by staff shortages and a superbug, while a leading medic described its neonatal unit as 'out of its depth'.
With so many clustered baby deaths, I believe blame was subconsciously shifted to a convenient scapegoat - the young, female, guileless nurse Lucy Letby.
The prospect of fresh charges and a trial may actually work in her favour. A better marshalled defence could call on a wealth of expert witnesses deployed to debunk bad science and iffy statistics.
That Letby's case is likely to rumble on for years is heartbreaking for the bereaved families.
A fresh appeal is needed immediately. The threshold for criminal conviction - being beyond reasonable doubt - hasn't, in my opinion, been close to being reached.
Justice may be blind, but it is not infallible.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
35 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Brit arrested at airport after staff notice 'strong smell' coming from his luggage
A British man has been arrested in the Canary Islands after workers detected a strong smell coming from his suitcase A 27-year-old Brit was detained by police at an airport in Spain's Canary Islands after staff detected a peculiar odour emanating from his luggage. During a routine check at Lanzarote Airport's Terminal 2, which services internal flights within the island group, customs officials discovered the unusually light yet malodorous suitcase. The Guardia Civil of Spain swiftly located the owner of the bag, a British man intending to fly to Tenerife South Airport, the main transport hub of the islands. Given their experience with such matters, customs officers decided to inspect the contents of the suitcase in the presence of the Brit, suspecting he might be carrying illicit substances. While packing your 100ml liquids into a bag is typically a good way to speed your way through security, inside this Brits luggage, they located four black vacuum-sealed bags, weighing a total of four kilos, that brought his journey to an abrupt end. Inside the 27-year-old's bags, they uncovered a substantial quantity of trimmed cannabis buds, estimated to have a street value of around €7,260, or £6300, in the Canary Islands. The incident occurred on Monday, June 29, but details about the arrest were only made public by Spanish authorities two weeks later on July 14. The identity of the man has not been disclosed. The Guardia Civil apprehended the British chap along with his substantial stash of cannabis, a Class B drug in the UK. However, Spain's laws differ, where the substance is legal for recreational use, and individuals are even permitted to cultivate a small quantity for personal consumption. Nonetheless, the distribution and sale of cannabis are still prohibited nationwide. Consequently, the Briton now stands accused of public health offences and will be presented before the Court of Instruction in Arrecife for trial.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Early handling of rape cases by Crown Prosecution Service ‘not good enough'
The handling of rape cases at an early stage by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is 'not good enough' and risks a poor service to victims, a watchdog has warned. An inspection of the prosecuting body found while the number of rape cases being charged is increasing, urgent improvements are needed to improve the chances of convictions once they get to court. Inspectors looking at cases before a suspect had been charged found prosecutors' analysis was often weak and failed to focus on the suspect's behaviour and actions before and after an alleged attack. His Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) said this hindered prosecutors being able to strengthen cases and over-focused on a victim's credibility. The report said the most concerning findings were that prosecutors were not proactively addressing areas to support victims at the early stages of a case, such as poor consideration of bail, sexual harm prevention orders or requesting victim personal statements. It found fewer than three in 10 cases fully met the standard for considering such matters to support victims. HMCPSI chief inspector Anthony Rogers said: 'Rape is an abhorrent and devastating crime, causing victims to suffer long-term emotional and physical trauma that impacts every aspect of their lives. 'We know that the volume of rape charges has increased at both a national and local level, and CPS staff are working hard to drive improvement in the quality of complex and distressing rape casework. 'However, our latest inspection shows that the CPS urgently needs to improve. Their handling of rape cases at the pre-charge stage is not good enough – creating problems for cases as they proceed and risking a poor service to victims.' Professor Katrin Hohl, independent adviser to the government on criminal justice responses to rape and sexual violence, said she was 'deeply troubled' by the findings of weak victim support. She said: 'The inspection also found that the quality of pre-charge advice, case analysis and strategy was inadequate in two-thirds of cases. 'While this does not appear to negatively impact rape charging decisions, poor case quality causes trial delays and reduces the chances of conviction. 'This is letting victims down and contributes to the courts crisis.' Inspectors called for the CPS to carry out eight recommendations including to develop a system that assesses and improves casework quality for rape cases and to offer meetings in every case before a decision is made about charging a suspect. Director of public prosecutions Stephen Parkinson said the CPS fully accepts the conclusions and recommendations of inspectors, and said improving how the body prosecutes rape is his priority. He said: 'We are implementing immediately an action plan to address these points, prioritising the safety of victims, making sure our focus is on the actions of the suspect and providing increased oversight, training and support for prosecutors. ' Reporting rape or sexual abuse takes tremendous courage, it is our responsibility to prosecute these cases with skill and care, prioritising the safety of victims and making sure they receive consistent support.' The prosecuting chief added: 'I am pleased the inspectorate found at least one charge of rape or attempted rape was brought in every case they examined. 'Importantly, they also found appropriate charges were selected in the majority of the cases to reflect the seriousness and extent of the offending. 'CPS prosecutors care deeply about their work and, thanks to improved relationships with police, we have made strong progress in increasing both referrals and charges. 'This has also led to a significant increase in convictions, making sure more victims get the justice they deserve.' Solicitor General Lucy Rigby KC said she has asked for HMCPSI to issue an update in 12 months' time over the progress of the CPS in implementing the recommendations. She added: 'This Government is treating violence against women and girls as the national emergency that it is, and we are committed both to cracking down on these vile crimes and ensuring that our criminal justice system delivers for victims.'
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Former senior coroner's officer says Lucy Letby has suffered miscarriage of justice
A senior coroner's officer who first reviewed the deaths of babies at the Countess of Chester hospital for Cheshire police in 2017 now believes Lucy Letby has suffered a miscarriage of justice. Stephanie Davies, who was given three hours to carry out her review, was told it was key to detectives deciding to commence an investigation into the former neonatal nurse. In her first interview, with the Guardian and Channel 4 News, Davies said she had become increasingly alarmed since December, when she learned that the hospital doctors had not reported a key medical procedure on one of the babies to the coroner at the time. She has since found the explanations of new medical experts, who have publicly contested the prosecution arguments, compelling. Last month, Davies wrote to Cheshire's senior coroner explaining her original involvement. 'I am now extremely concerned that the convictions of Ms Letby are wholly unsafe,' she wrote. Letby, who was a nurse in the hospital's neonatal unit, was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven more, and sentenced to a whole life in prison for each offence. The court of appeal twice last year refused her permission to appeal. Letby's lawyer, Mark McDonald, has applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), arguing that the convictions are unsafe and should be referred back to the court of appeal. A panel of international experts led by the world renowned neonatologist Dr Shoo Lee, who were instructed by McDonald, have publicly argued that Letby has been wrongly convicted, that there were no murders, and the babies died from natural causes and instances of poor care in the hospital. Lawyers representing the babies' families have been adamant that the convictions are safe and rejected the new experts' opinions. Two specialist consultant neonatologists, Dr Neil Aiton and Dr Svilena Dimitrova, produced a report for McDonald on a triplet who died at the hospital, anonymised at Letby's trial as Baby O. Davies said she was taken aback at the account of their report given at a press conference in December, that in trying to relieve swelling in the abdomen, a doctor had mistakenly inserted a needle with a cannula into the liver, and that this was a cause of the baby's death. Lee's panel has also said the needle may have penetrated the baby's liver. That medical procedure was considered at the trial, where the doctor who inserted the needle, the neonatal unit's clinical lead, Dr Stephen Brearey, said it was 'nowhere near' the liver. Prosecution medical experts argued that the procedure was not significant to the harm the baby suffered. Letby was found guilty of inflicting the liver damage, and injecting air into the baby's stomach and veins. In December, Davies noted from her original review that the hospital doctors had not reported the procedure involving the needle to the coroner's office. That meant it was not mentioned in the summary of circumstances surrounding the baby's death, sent by the coroner's office to the pathologist carrying out the post-mortem. In his postmortem report, the pathologist did identify bleeding from a rupture around the liver as the cause of Baby O's death, and said it had been caused by 'prematurity'. Davies said: 'I don't know why the hospital doctors didn't include the detail regarding the needle. 'I believe it could have made a difference to the post-mortem if it was highlighted. An inquest may well have been held, there may have been a finding that the baby died due to a medical procedure, and there may never have been a police investigation.' In her statement to the public inquiry chaired by Lady Justice Thirlwall, Davies explained that in early May 2017 she was asked to attend a 'Gold Group' meeting of senior Cheshire police officers, when they were considering whether to investigate the concerns raised by hospital doctors about Letby. The assistant chief constable, Darren Martland, asked Davies to review the post-mortems and records for the babies who had died, and provide an opinion the next morning. Senior coroner's officers lead teams investigating and collating evidence about deaths on behalf of coroners. Davies, who had undertaken specialist investigative training, had been promoted to senior coroner's officer in March 2017. In her review, Davies reported there were gaps in the explanations of how some babies had died. This was because some causes of death were quite general, including prematurity given for the rupture around Baby O's liver. 'I reported that there were missing jigsaw pieces, that the deaths of the babies hadn't been fully explained,' Davies says. 'I said if the police went ahead with an investigation, they may find those missing pieces. But I did not say, or see any evidence, that any of the babies had been deliberately harmed.' Davies says her manager, then Det Insp Paul Hughes, who became the senior investigating officer, told her when passing her office one day that her review was one of the main reasons they decided to launch a criminal investigation. The case of Baby O became key to hardening the investigation into Letby. Cheshire police appointed Dr Dewi Evans, a retired paediatrician, as their medical expert. Evans has said the police showed him Baby O's medical notes at his first meeting, and within 10 minutes, he saw the liver damage and said it must have been inflicted deliberately. Davies says she was surprised when Letby was convicted, but she assumed the trial must have established the truth. In her Thirlwall statement, she cautioned that it had been a 'near miss', because the police were not going to investigate before her review. However, during the last six months, she has become increasingly concerned. 'The new experts' medical explanations make sense to me,' she says. 'They have filled the gaps I saw when I did my review – much more than the police and prosecution case against Lucy Letby. 'I stand by the review I did, because I reported that there were gaps. But I feel almost guilty that it contributed to a police investigation being started, which led to convictions that I now believe are unsafe and a miscarriage of justice.' Davies lost her job at Cheshire police in 2023 after a different review she conducted, which challenged the outcomes of two murder investigations. She consulted a small number of experts to further her research, and her report was leaked to the Sunday Times – not by her – then widely reported in the media, including by the Guardian. Cheshire police pursued Davies for gross misconduct, alleging that she breached duties of confidentiality when she sent details to the experts. She resigned from the force before her disciplinary hearing. Responding to Davies' concerns about the Lucy Letby case, a Cheshire police spokesperson described Davies's former position as 'an administrative role within the Cheshire coroner's office' and said she was 'neither formally medically, nor legally trained'. 'A disciplinary hearing in February 2023 found allegations of gross misconduct by Stephanie Davies unrelated to the Lucy Letby case to be proved and had she not already resigned, she would have been dismissed without notice,' the spokesperson said. 'Cheshire constabulary strongly refute the credibility of these claims.' Davies said the senior coroner's officer role was investigative, and rejected any suggestion that she was not well qualified for the work she did. Dewi Evans said he stood by the opinions he gave about Baby O. The hospital and Brearey declined to comment. The Guardian approached the solicitor representing the parents of the triplets, Babies O and P. He said that they did not wish to comment. The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know. If you have something to share on this subject you can contact us confidentially using the following methods. Secure Messaging in the Guardian app The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said. If you don't already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select 'Secure Messaging'. SecureDrop, instant messengers, email, telephone and post See our guide at for alternative methods and the pros and cons of each.
