Lucy Letby's New Expert Supporters Claim No Babies Were Deliberately Harmed. Who Should We Believe?

When it comes to nan Lucy Letby case, location are 2 parallel universes. In one, nan mobility of her guilt is settled. She is simply a monster who murdered 7 babies and attempted to execution 7 much while she was a caregiver astatine nan Countess of Chester Hospital betwixt 2015 and 2016.

In nan different universe, Letby is nan unfortunate of a flawed criminal justness strategy successful which unreliable aesculapian grounds was utilized to condemn and imprison an guiltless woman.

This is what Letby's barrister Mark McDonald argues. He says he has nan backing of a sheet of nan champion experts successful nan world who opportunity location is nary grounds immoderate babies were deliberately harmed.

These extremes are some disturbing and bewildering. One of them is incorrect - but which? Who should we believe?

The families of nan infants opportunity location is nary doubt. Letby was convicted aft a 10-month proceedings by a assemblage that had considered a immense scope of evidence. They opportunity Letby's defenders are picking connected mini bits of grounds retired of discourse and that nan changeless questioning of her guilt is profoundly distressing.

I person spent almost 3 years investigating nan Letby lawsuit - successful that clip I person made 3 Panorama documentaries and cowritten a book connected nan taxable pinch my workfellow Judith Moritz. Yet, if true, nan caller evidence, presented by Mark McDonald successful a bid of high-profile property conferences and media releases, is shocking.

According to his experts, nan prosecution master aesculapian lawsuit is unreliable.

Mark McDonald has not released nan panel's afloat reports, which are presently pinch nan Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), nan assemblage he needs to seduce to reopen Letby's case, but he has released summaries of nan panel's findings.

Letby was recovered blameworthy of 15 counts of execution and attempted murder, and nan assemblage successful her original proceedings reached unanimous verdicts connected 3 of those cases. That is simply a bully denotation of wherever nan strongest aesculapian grounds mightiness lie.

To get a consciousness of nan imperfections woven done some nan prosecution and nan defence arguments, it's worthy looking astatine 1 of those cases successful which nan blameworthy verdict was unanimous: that of Baby O.

Baby O was calved successful June 2016, 1 of triplet brothers. At Letby's trial, nan assemblage was told that his decease was successful portion nan consequence of liver injuries, which nan prosecution pathologist described arsenic impact-type injuries - akin to those successful a car accident.

As successful different cases for which Letby was convicted, nan prosecution said circumstantial grounds besides tied her to nan crime.

However, a paediatric pathologist who was not progressive successful nan lawsuit but has seen Baby O's post-mortem report, says it was "unlikely" Baby O's liver injuries were caused by effect - arsenic nan prosecution claims.

"You can't wholly norm retired nan possibility," says nan pathologist, who does not want to beryllium identified. "But successful my view, nan location of nan injuries and nan information of nan liver insubstantial itself don't fresh pinch that explanation."

Which raises nan evident mobility - if nan prosecution were incorrect astir Baby O's liver injuries, past why did he die?

Letby was accused of injecting aerial into nan humor of Baby O arsenic good arsenic that of different babies. This, nan prosecution said, caused an aerial bubble and a blockage successful nan circulation known arsenic aerial embolism.

During nan proceedings nan prosecution pointed to respective pieces of grounds to make their case, including a 1989 world study of aerial embolism successful newborn babies, which noted tegument discolouration arsenic 1 imaginable characteristic of it.

Prosecutors based on that these aforesaid tegument colour changes were observed successful respective babies successful nan Letby case.

However, Dr Shoo Lee, a Canadian neonatologist and 1 of nan authors of that 1989 study, is now portion of Letby's squad of defence experts moving pinch Mark McDonald. He argues that his study was misused.

He says tegument discolouration has not featured successful immoderate reported cases of aerial embolism successful babies wherever nan aerial has entered nan circulation via a vein – which is what nan prosecution alleged happened successful nan Letby case.

In different words, nan prosecution was incorrect to usage tegument discolouration arsenic grounds of aerial embolism.

It sounds significant. But is it capable to conclusion nan aerial embolism allegations?

As pinch galore aspects of nan Letby case, nan reply is not clear-cut.

The prosecution did not trust connected tegument discolouration unsocial to make their lawsuit for aerial embolism. And though location person not been immoderate reported cases of tegument discolouration successful babies wherever aerial has entered nan circulation via a vein, immoderate critics person based on that nan number of reported aerial embolism cases is mini and that nan mentation is still possible.

To muddy nan waters further, different of Mark McDonald's sheet of experts has said that successful truth location was post-mortem grounds of aerial embolism successful nan babies.

"We cognize these babies suffered aerial embolism because of nan post-mortem imaging successful immoderate of them," says Neena Modi, a professor of neonatal medicine.

She believes this is highly apt to person occurred during resuscitation, and that location are overmuch much plausible explanations for nan collapses and deaths of nan babies successful nan Letby lawsuit than aerial embolism.

The aerial embolism theory, she said, was "highly speculative". But her remarks show nan statement is acold from settled.

There has been different mentation for Baby O's death.

In December 2024, Mark McDonald called a property convention successful which 1 of his experts, Dr Richard Taylor, claimed that a expert had accidentally pierced nan baby's liver pinch a needle during resuscitation. This, he argued, had led to nan baby's death.

Dr Taylor added: "I deliberation nan expert knows who they are. I person to opportunity from a individual constituent of position that if this had happened to me, I'd beryllium incapable to slumber astatine nighttime knowing that what I had done had led to nan decease of a baby, and now location is simply a caregiver successful jail, convicted of murder."

The expert accused of causing nan baby's decease was subsequently identified arsenic Stephen Brearey – 1 of Letby's main accusers astatine nan Countess of Chester Hospital.

Mr Brearey says: "Given nan ongoing investigations and inquiries, and to respect nan confidentiality of those involved, I will not beryllium making immoderate further remark astatine this time."

It was a bombshell claim. But does nan grounds support it?

One denotation that nan needle mentation mightiness beryllium shaky was that Dr Taylor, by his ain admission, had not seen Baby O's aesculapian notes and was relying connected a study that had been written by 2 different experts.

Another evident problem pinch nan needle mentation is that it had already been examined astatine magnitude during Letby's trial.

The prosecution pathologist concluded that location was nary grounds that a needle had pierced Baby O's liver while he was live and nan paediatric pathologist we said to agrees.

They told us: "These injuries weren't caused by a needle. They were successful different parts of nan liver and location was nary motion of immoderate needle wounded connected nan liver."

Even if nan needle had penetrated nan baby's liver, it cannot explicate why Baby O collapsed successful nan first spot aliases why he died - nan needle was inserted aft nan baby's last and fatal illness towards nan extremity of nan resuscitation.

When asked if he still stood by his comments astir nan doctor's needle, Dr Taylor told america that while nan needle whitethorn not person been nan superior origin of death, his "opinion has not substantially changed".

He said nan "needle astir apt penetrated nan liver" of Baby O, and "probably accelerated his demise".

The mobility of wherever this leaves nan lawsuit presented by Mark McDonald's sheet of experts erstwhile it comes to nan needle mentation is simply a difficult 1 to answer.

It would look that among Letby's defenders, location is not consensus.

Consultant neonatologist Dr Neil Aiton is 1 of nan authors of nan original study connected which Dr Taylor based his comments. Dr Aiton says that he has examined nan grounds independently and has concluded that Baby O's liver injuries were caused by inappropriate resuscitation attempts, including hyperinflation of nan baby's lungs.

However, he besides says it was "pretty clear" a needle had punctured nan liver during resuscitation.

When Dr Aiton was told that different experts, including nan paediatric pathologist who said to nan BBC, person examined nan lawsuit of Baby O and said that it is implausible to reason this happened, he said that location were 2 possibilities. Either nan liver ruptured because of a needle aliases it ruptured spontaneously.

Dr Aiton's position appears to beryllium that mediocre resuscitation caused nan baby's liver injuries and whether it was a needle aliases not is "not important".

That is simply a opposition from what Dr Taylor said successful that December property conference. And critics opportunity Dr Aiton's relationship still does not explicate why Baby O collapsed successful nan first spot and why he needed specified hopeless resuscitation.

A summary study from Letby's master sheet appears to backmost further distant from nan needle theory. It says a needle "may have" punctured nan liver.

Other experts, including nan paediatric pathologist, said that Dr Aiton's study of hyper-inflated lungs would not explicate Baby O's liver injuries.

Once again, nan lawsuit illustrates really difficult it is to separate betwixt plausible and implausible claims.

Since that property conference, different experts moving for Letby's defence squad person put guardant different mentation for Baby O's death. They opportunity his liver injuries were nan consequence of traumatic transportation astatine nan clip of birth.

Professor Modi says this was a "highly plausible cause".

But that has been contested from a astonishing direction. Dr Mike Hall, a neonatologist, was Lucy Letby's original defence master and attended tribunal passim her trial.

He has been a staunch professional of her conviction, arguing her proceedings wasn't adjacent and that location is nary definitive aesculapian grounds that babies were deliberately harmed.

However, Dr Hall's position is that grounds for nan commencement trauma mentation is simply not there. He notes that Baby O was calved successful bully information by caesarean conception and location is nary grounds of a traumatic transportation successful nan baby's aesculapian notes.

"There's still nary grounds that anyone did thing deliberately to harm Baby O," he adds. "However, thing was going connected pinch Baby O, which we haven't explained.

"We don't cognize what nan origin of this is. But that doesn't mean that we truthful person to dress that we know."

For nan jury, Baby O was 1 of nan clearest cases that proved Letby was a killer. And yet location appears to beryllium flawed master grounds connected some sides.

There were 2 different cases wherever nan assemblage returned unanimous verdicts – nan cases of Babies F and L.

The prosecution based on that some babies had been poisoned pinch insulin and highlighted humor tests that it said were clear grounds of this. For nan prosecution, nan insulin cases proved that personification astatine nan Countess of Chester Hospital was harming babies.

Letby's defence have, meanwhile, marshalled galore arguments against nan insulin theory. One is that nan humor trial utilized - an immunoassay - is inaccurate and should person been verified. But moreover Letby's experts judge nan trial is meticulous astir 98% of nan time.

Another statement is that premature babies tin process insulin otherwise and that nan humor trial results are "within nan expected scope for pre-term infants". But nan aesculapian specialists we've spoken to are baffled by this declare and opportunity it goes against mainstream technological understanding.

Of course, mainstream sentiment tin beryllium wrong. But it is difficult to show because Letby's defence squad person not shared nan technological evidence.

One of nan experts down nan study – a mechanical technologist who carries retired biomedical investigation – clarified that his study says nan humor trial results were "not uncommon". However, Letby's defence declined to show nan BBC nan published studies that support this claim.

Once again, nan claims of some nan prosecution and defence are not clear-cut.

Ultimately, nan mobility of whether Letby's lawsuit should beryllium re-examined by nan Court of Appeal now lies pinch CCRC. They person nan task of studying Mark McDonald's master reports.

If he is successful and Lucy Letby's lawsuit is referred backmost to nan Court of Appeal - that is yet wherever nan master grounds connected some sides will look a existent reckoning.

Lead image credit: Cheshire Constabulary, PA