It was the trial that gripped the nation. Lucy Letby, a quiet, beige-wearing neonatal nurse from Hereford, was branded the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history. Handed 15 whole-life orders, she was locked away, ostensibly the monster who stalked the wards of the Countess of Chester Hospital. But tonight, a darker, far more disturbing truth is emerging: Lucy Letby may be completely innocent.
A bombshell investigation involving world-leading medical experts, leaked documents, and suppressed evidence suggests that the "Angel of Death" narrative was a fiction constructed to cover up a failing hospital's catastrophic incompetence. From consultants who allegedly lied in court to police officers blinded by confirmation bias, the system didn't just fail Lucy Letby—it actively manufactured a killer where there was none.
Here is the shocking, detailed case for her innocence that the jury never fully heard.
EXCLUSIVE: The "Smoking Gun" That Wasn't
The 14 Experts Who Say "No Murders Occurred"
The cornerstone of the prosecution's case was that the deaths were "medically inexplicable" without a killer. That foundation has now been obliterated. A panel of 14 world-renowned experts, led by Professor Shoo Lee—one of the most respected neonatologists on the planet—has reviewed the files. Their conclusion is devastating: "We did not find any murders."
Dr. Lee, whose own 1989 research paper was used by the prosecution to diagnose " air embolism Air Embolism: A blockage of blood supply caused by air bubbles. The prosecution claimed this caused the deaths, but new experts argue the symptoms (skin rash) do not match medical science. " (air injected into the bloodstream), has come forward to say his work was fundamentally misused. He states it is a "fundamental mistake of medicine" to diagnose air embolism based on the skin rashes described by witnesses. The "purple patches" seen on the babies were not the result of murder, but of circulatory collapse, sepsis, and shock—natural reactions in dying, premature infants.
The panel found that every single death and collapse attributed to Letby had a plausible medical explanation rooted in natural causes or "bad medical care," including:
- Baby A: Died of blood clots (thrombosis), not air.
- Baby D: Died of overwhelming sepsis and pneumonia that was untreated due to medical error.
- Baby E: The "rigiair embolismd wire" theory was pure speculation; the bleeding was likely caused by Necrotising Enterocolitis (NEC), a common disease in preemies.
- Baby O: Perhaps the most shocking finding—experts now believe a doctor, not Letby, accidentally caused the fatal liver injury during CPR or a procedure.
THE "HIRED GUN": Dr. Dewi Evans Exposed
"Worthless" Reports and Shifting Stories
The prosecution's star medical witness, Dr. Dewi Evans, was the man who convinced the jury these deaths were suspicious. But facts that have come to light cast serious doubt on his reliability.
In a previous, unrelated case (Lz v R), a Court of Appeal judge described a report provided by Dr. Evans as "worthless", noting that he made "no effort to provide a balanced opinion" and acted more like an advocate than an independent expert. This damning judicial history was not fully emphasized to the jury.
Even more alarming, Dr. Evans has "changed his mind" since the trial. He initially claimed Babies C, I, and P were killed by air injected into the stomach. He has since retracted or revised these theories, moving the goalposts to suggest different methods of killing when the evidence didn't fit. If the expert can't decide how she killed them, how could a jury be sure she did?
CAUGHT IN A LIE? The Consultant and the Door Swipe
Dr. Ravi Jayram's Testimony Crumbles
Dr. Ravi Jayram, a consultant pediatrician, provided the most dramatic testimony of the trial. He claimed he walked into the nursery and caught Letby "red-handed" standing over Baby K while the infant's tube was dislodged, doing nothing.
But there is hard evidence that suggests this event could not have happened as he described.
Electronic door swipe data—logs that track exactly when staff enter and exit rooms—proved that Dr. Jayram was not in the nursery at the times he claimed. The prosecution was forced to "clarify" and rectify this data in the retrial, admitting the timeline presented initially was inaccurate.
Why would a senior doctor embellish his testimony? The answer may lie in self-preservation.
THE MOTIVE: A Cover-Up of "Poor Care"
Why the Consultants Turned on Letby
The narrative of a serial killer served a powerful purpose: it deflected blame from the consultants and hospital management.
In 2015 and 2016, the neonatal unit was in chaos. It was dangerously understaffed, plagued by sewage leaks, and battling outbreaks of deadly bacteria like Pseudomonas.
- The Whistleblower: Before she was arrested, Lucy Letby was a whistleblower. She had raised a formal grievance against the consultants for bullying and victimisation.
- The Apology: In a twist almost no one knows, the hospital board initially ordered the consultants to apologise to Letby in writing. The board found no evidence of her guilt and believed the doctors were scapegoating her to cover up the unit's high mortality rate caused by their own departmental failures.
Dr. Jayram and his colleagues ("The Gang of Four") were facing scrutiny for the spike in deaths. By pinning it on a "malevolent nurse," they transformed a story of NHS negligence into a crime drama, saving their careers and reputations.
THE "CONFESSION" THAT WASN'T
Therapy Notes Weaponised
"I AM EVIL I DID THIS."
This Post-it note was the prosecution's ace. But context is everything. Letby wrote this note after she had been suspended, isolated, and accused of killing babies. She was under the care of occupational health counselors who advised her to write down her intrusive thoughts as a coping mechanism.
In the same note, she wrote, "I haven't done anything wrong." Forensic psychologists argue that the "I am evil" phrase is classic "imposter syndrome" and a reflection of the trauma of being accused, not an admission of guilt. It was the scribbling of a woman having a mental breakdown, not a confession.
INSULIN Insulin Evidence: The prosecution claimed babies were poisoned with insulin. However, the testing method (Immunoassay) is not designed for forensic use and is known to produce "false positives," rendering the evidence unreliable. MYTH
Bad Science Convicted an Innocent Woman
The convictions for the attempted murder of two babies using insulin were presented as "irrefutable scientific proof." They were nothing of the sort.
The tests used to detect the insulin (immunoassays) are not designed for forensic use. They are screening tests known to produce "false positives" due to the "Hook Effect" or interference from antibodies in the blood.
Crucially, a confirmatory test—required in any criminal case to prove poisoning—was never performed. The babies also showed no symptoms of lethal insulin overdose (such as seizures or coma), which is medically impossible if the test results were accurate. The jury was blinded with bad science.
POLICE INCOMPETENCE: Operation Hummingbird Operation Hummingbird: The code name for the massive Cheshire Police investigation into the Countess of Chester Hospital deaths, which critics argue suffered from "confirmation bias" by focusing only on Letby.
"The Texas Sharpshooter"
The police investigation was driven by confirmation bias. They started with the conclusion—Letby is guilty—and worked backward. This is known as the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy": drawing a target around a cluster of bullet holes after you've fired the gun.
They focused only on deaths when Letby was on shift, ignoring deaths that happened when she wasn't there. They ignored the fact that she worked more hours than anyone else, making her presence at a "cluster" of deaths a statistical probability, not a sign of guilt.
THE SILENCED: "Too Scared to Speak"
Why didn't other nurses defend her? They were terrified.
A group known as "Nineteen Nurses" has formed, claiming that the culture at the hospital is one of fear. Colleagues who believe in Letby's innocence say they have been silenced by the Trust and are "too frightened to speak out" for fear of losing their jobs. The hospital's aggressive management of the narrative ensured that only the prosecution's voice was heard.
CONCLUSION: A Moral Emergency
Why The CCRC Must Act Now
The case is now with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). But the process is agonisingly slow. The CCRC has a high bar for "fresh evidence," often prioritising legal finality over truth.
However, the evidence is now overwhelming:
- Medical: The 14-expert panel proves natural causes.
- Forensic: The insulin evidence is scientifically invalid.
- Witness: The key accusers (Evans and Jayram) are compromised.
- Systemic: The hospital was a deathtrap of bacteria and poor care.
Lucy Letby sits in a cell, serving a whole-life tariff for crimes she likely did not commit. The system failed the parents by not telling them the truth about their babies' deaths, and it failed Lucy Letby by making her the scapegoat. This is not just a miscarriage of justice; it is a national scandal. A retrial is the only path to the truth.
Innocent scapegoat nurse should be fast tracked at CCRC or exonerated.
ReplyDelete100% Agree
DeleteLucy should be exonerated and released immediately! She should also be awarded massive damages for the loss of her career and freedom. The doctors should be held accountable, one should be on trial for perjury! Cheshire police and the “independent” experts need to be held accountable for their confirmation bias. I don’t think the judge was much better!
ReplyDeleteAn appalling miscarriage of justice, there are many thousands ( yes) of us who will not cease exposing this issue until she is exonerated
ReplyDeleteMysteriously patients notes are lost when care is sub standard losing all the evidence! I agree 100% with this article.
ReplyDeleteLucy Letby is clearly innocent. She was made a scapegoat for NHS failure and our incompetent criminal justice system convicted her on the word of liars covering up their own failings and charlatans posing as experts exploiting the legal system for their own gain. The truth is out, the reports from dozens of global experts are with the CCRC and Manchester University held a conference last week with yet more expert speakers to discuss what went wrong with her case
ReplyDelete