Lucy letby

[Airsumaces1968]

This is the bit the channel 4 doc eludes too, and they changed their opening statement to remove the date but still imply letby was the one who injected air on the 12th - at least that’s the impression the doc alluded to

Again it fits the narrative of fitting theories to a conclusion, rather than letting the theory get you to a conclusion

Exactly. I don't know if the lass is innocent or not but there is only circumstantial evidence which, at the best of times can be very unreliable. At least we can all agree on that.

 

[Redwurzel]

...and no motive.

 

[Millbrook]

...and no motive.

I'm not saying she is guilty but serial killers do not appear to have a motive like a one off murderer.

There are a whole host of possible reasons.

 

[Mysonpat.]

Does Lucy have any oddities in her past? Seems strange a lady in her 30s suddenly decides to start killing babies in her care?

 

[ForssAwakens]

BM: The jury will recall we've seen the abdominal X-ray for 12 June at 12.38.

DE: Yes.

BM: Right.

DE: Yes.

BM: And as to that, what you do say, we've had a paragraph where you say: "It's therefore probable the infection was a significant factor in [Baby C]'s collapse during the late hours on 13 June."

In the next paragraph, you go on to say this: "I am suspicious of the gaseous distension reported on the abdominal X-ray on 12 June and wonder whether this represents inappropriate management whereby his attendant inserted excess air into his stomach via his nasogastric tube, doing so in the knowledge that it would cause the infant discomfort and distress."

DE: That was a possibility that crossed my mind at the time.

BM: At the time, just at the time?

DE: No, no, when I wrote this statement.

BM: When you say at the time, is it a possibility that came in and went out with this report or did it stay with you for longer?

DE: I don't know what you mean by that, actually.

BM: Is it a possibility that existed only when you did this report or have you stuck with the theory that there was air forced down the NGT on 12 June?

DE: Right. Whether --

BM: Can you answer that question first (overspeaking) help the jury with an answer, please, doctor.

DE: With regard to the 12th. That was one option. The other option was the CPAP. Because he was on CPAP at the time, which he wasn't when he collapsed. But he was on CPAP at the time. So that was one option. The other option was inadvertent air and we can't discuss it now, we'll discuss it later in this trial in relation to other cases. Therefore -- so therefore, by this time, I was aware of the fact that several babies had collapsed, some had died, in Chester, and, yes, so all of this was adding to my anxieties about what was causing all of this, yes.

BM: And your view, back in March 2019, was that there could have been deliberate harm done on 12 June via the NGT; yes?

DE: Can't rule it out.

BM: Pardon?

DE: There were two scenarios --

MR JUSTICE GOSS: "Can't rule it out", he said.

BM: I apologise, my Lord?

DE: You can't rule it out, two scenarios. That's one of them. The second one is he had CPAP -- he was on CPAP at the time.

BM: If we come forwards, there was, we know, a report prepared after a joint meeting of experts in August of this year, wasn't there?

DE: Yes.

BM: And Dr Marnerides was present at least for part of that meeting, wasn't he?

DE: Yes.

BM: The date of the report, there are various dates on it with the signatures, but we are looking at a period at or about the end of August. You signed it, Dr Evans, on 24 August 2022.

DE: Yes.

BM: Page M1257, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE GOSS: Thank you.

BM: That's where it starts. At page M1260, page 4 of the report, you were dealing with opinions on [Baby C]. This is a report that you signed off on, really, a month or two before this trial commenced, wasn't it?

DE: Yes.

BM: In that report, you say:

"The massive gastric dilation seen on the X-ray of 12 June was most likely due to deliberate exogenous administration of air via the NGT."

That's what you say, isn't it?

DE: That was our conclusion at the time. I think this was a joint report, I think.

BM: Yes, but that's a conclusion between you and Dr Bohin, isn't it?

DE: Yes.

BM: By the time you did that you had all the material you required on the care of [Baby C], didn't you?

DE: Yes, I think so.

BM: Yes. And armed with that material, your view was that the 12 June was probably due to deliberate exogenous administration of air; is that correct?

DE: That was a possibility, yes.

BM: Most likely due to that, you say.

In that report, a matter of months or a month or two before this trial commenced, you make no suggestion that the diaphragm had been splintered by excessive air on 13 June, do you?

DE: Right. That follows, actually -- perhaps it wasn't -- it wasn't said specifically.

BM: Can we establish that first of all?

DE: Yes, that is correct.

BM: You didn't?

DE: That is correct.

BM: There are about 13 different points under [Baby C] --

DE: Sorry, I haven't got a copy.

BM: Let me ask this: if you had wanted to say it was splinting of the diaphragm, nothing stopped you from saying that, did it?

DE: If it wasn't said, it wasn't said.

BM: No, it wasn't said because it wasn't something that you had entertained as a possibility at that point, was it?

DE: Right. That is incorrect. What we have discussed here is -- let's stick with the 12th, okay? There was a distinct possibility that [Baby C] had excess air injected into his stomach on the 12th. That's what we said.

At the same time we realised that however much air was in his stomach, he was still stable from a respiratory point of view. So therefore, you would only -- so excess air injected into the stomach -- it's a complicated description, this. Injected air -- air -- sorry, start again.

Air injected into the stomach will cause the stomach dilation, but it'll compromise the baby only if the air -- if there's sufficient air and there's sufficient pressure to splint the diaphragm. Right?

Now, on the 12th, [Baby C] was in CPAP, which is a pretty non-invasive method of respiratory support, so therefore however the air -- however the air went in, it would have been insufficient to splint the diaphragm on the 12th. Okay? Because if it had splinted the diaphragm on the 12th he'd have died or collapsed on the 12th. He didn't. So therefore, however much air went into his stomach and intestines on 12 June, so we're talking 36 hours prior to his collapse, that -- and I have no idea how much air went in. However much went in was insufficient to destabilise [Baby C] from a respiratory point of view.

So therefore there was no -- so therefore there was nothing to suggest that the extra air would have splinted the diaphragm at that time. Okay? That was the last X-ray, by the way, that was taken -- that's not a criticism by the way -- the one on the 12th. That was the last X-ray. So the only X-ray -- sorry, so the only X-ray evidence we have is from the 12th, we don't have any from the 13th.

Therefore, I hope that distinguishes what I think is a mechanism, a scenario, that occurred on the 12th, compared to the scenario that occurred that led to his collapse.

BM: Dr Evans, we're looking --

DE: There are different -- the two are different, both in relation to volume of air that got into his stomach and intestines and the other -- in other words, it did not compromise him. And the second thing, which we're aware of, is that he had CPAP -- he was on CPAP as well. So those are -- the two events are quite different in the way that they affected [Baby C].

BM: Looking at your opinions, before we get to what lies behind this, your opinions and the way you have formed them, and I'd just like you to be absolutely clear, that as of a month or two before this trial, whatever may or may not happen as a result of it, your view was that 12 June was intentional harm, wasn't it?

DE: That was a possibility, yes, it was.

BM: Yes, that was your view. At the same time you had nothing to say about splinting of the diaphragm on the 13th, did you?

DE: On the 13th, I think he collapsed --

BM: No, in that report, your view, Dr Evans, I'm sorry if the question wasn't clear, at that time you had nothing to say in August of this year as to splinting of the diaphragm on the 13th, had you?

DE: No.

BM: No. What you have done in your evidence today is introduce something new with the purpose of supporting the allegation rather than explaining the facts, isn't it?

DE: No, no, that is incorrect. I'm here to support the jury and everyone in this court, trying to explain what was it that led to a baby who was very small and premature suddenly collapsing and where resuscitation was unsuccessful.

In doing that, I am totally upfront in saying that I am not relying on my opinion alone, I'm relying on other people's opinion -- sorry, other medical people's opinion as well. That is what doctors do. We do it all of the time. That is what we do. Okay? So I'm here to assist the members of the jury in sorting out what is a pretty complicated case.

BM: I'm suggesting to you, Dr Evans, that you are reaching for things that support the allegation rather than reflecting the facts.

DE: Well, I disagree with you. I have just explained the facts --

BM: Right.

DE: -- to you and that's it.

 

[Redwurzel]

I'm not saying she is guilty but serial killers do not appear to have a motive like a one off murderer.

There are a whole host of possible reasons.

How many female serial killers of young babies are you aware of?

My guess is even rare amongst serial killers, who are already a rare group.

 

[JonnyHistory]

How many female serial killers of young babies are you aware of?

My guess is even rare amongst serial killers, who are already a rare group.

It is rare, but happens, there are documented cases in Britain going back to the 1800s of women serial killers in relation to young children.

 

[JonnyHistory]

This is an interesting paper on the psychology of child serial killers, its interesting, but obviously macabre reading.

https://www.cji.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Psychology_of_Child_Serial_Killer.pdf

 

[FabioPorkpie]

For some reason I can’t reply directly to your post @ForssAwakens, but what it shows to me is that the defence legal time were doing their job and trying to find any angle they could to discredit the evidence or Evans. Indeed, Ben Myers KC made similar points in his closing defence statement, along the lines that the prosecution had chopped and changed to make evidence fit a narrative of murder. The important thing is these arguments were made and presented before judge and jury, and they were not deemed strong enough to convince the jury that they were correct. The argument has been made and considered already, and it fell short, so it’s not really relevant now.
Even so, in the case of child C, the prosecution closing statement actually told the jury to disregard Evans in this case if they felt it merited, because one of the other prosecution experts ( Dr Marnerides) gave a much more detailed description that came to the same conclusion as Dr Evans ie the same evidence and conclusion can be drawn from somebody else’s testimony anyway.

Much is made of Evans and his personality, but it’s kind of irrelevant whether he is arrogant or combative or dislikeable, because those character traits have no baring on whether he was correct. Additionally, a lot is made by Hammond and co regarding Evans, as if he was the only expert. He was not. The prosecution had experts across multiple disciplines, more appropriate to the forensic analysis and assessment of the clinical records and evidence.



Ben Myers KC is another who has come in for a lot of stick from the miscarriage of justice crowd, for not having been competent. People are still saying that he didn’t call any defense experts and that is a sign of incompetence. The reason is almost certainly far more obvious, as discussed in the Double Jeopardy podcast I posted earlier, as well as the trial podcast interview in Dr Mike Hall. It seemed pretty obvious from the get go why the experts weren’t called, but Myers has had his competence called into question by people who frankly don’t want to see the obvious, or who are looking for conspiracies such as a cover up etc.

 

[JonnyHistory]

This is an interesting paper on the psychology of child serial killers, its interesting, but obviously macabre reading.

https://www.cji.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Psychology_of_Child_Serial_Killer.pdf

The "behavioural elements" section, and the following "The Motivational Phase" and "fantasy" phase", for me, seemed to fit with what I have observed and read about Letby.

*edit to add the subsequent sections I initially missed out.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

Letby was still convicted of using this method to murder Baby C on 14 June, for reasons that make even less sense now Evans signed a statement to Channel 5declaring this is not a method of murder after all. This leaves Bohin and Marnerides as the sole remaining supporters of this method of murder, which is entirely without an evidence base.

Where is this statement signed for channel 5 by Evans declaring it is not a method for murder?
Where on earth has this come from? Who has it, or has even seen it? Such information would surely have been used in their (very poor) clickbait documentary, had they had it?
Nobody seems to have this, or be able to prove it, yet in December McDonald kept spouting off about Evans having changing his mind and he had a statement from a documentary (presumably ch 5) that proved it and he would go straight to the Court of Appeal as this would allow them to reopen the appeal process…..
10 months later… nothing. He claimed to have this bombshell and did absolutely nothing with it. If people, Letby included, are pinning their hopes on him they are going to be disappointed. He’s made a whole career of appeals and submissions to ccrc, representing some pretty abhorrent murderers along the way. Presumably as long as he is representing these people and making submissions, he’s getting paid?
Why hasn’t he pushed Letby to waive legal privilege? Why hasn’t she done that? Why wouldn’t she let her new defense team have full access of the details and evidence from her previous defense team, be able to ask them why they took the strategy they did? Why wouldn’t he want it and be pushing her for it? Could it be because some of the defence experts were unable to rule out murder or disagree sufficiently with the prosecution? Possibly, but unless she waives legal privilege we will never know. The fact that she doesn’t waive legal privilege is quite possibly very telling. Ben Myers KC would presumably be able to defend his methodology and strategy then, and to address the ridiculous claims of incompetence.

 

[theboydom]

Where is this statement signed for channel 5 by Evans declaring it is not a method for murder?
Where on earth has this come from? Who has it, or has even seen it? Such information would surely have been used in their (very poor) clickbait documentary, had they had it?
Nobody seems to have this, or be able to prove it, yet in December McDonald kept spouting off about Evans having changing his mind and he had a statement from a documentary (presumably ch 5) that proved it and he would go straight to the Court of Appeal as this would allow them to reopen the appeal process…..
10 months later… nothing. He claimed to have this bombshell and did absolutely nothing with it. If people, Letby included, are pinning their hopes on him they are going to be disappointed. He’s made a whole career of appeals and submissions to ccrc, representing some pretty abhorrent murderers along the way. Presumably as long as he is representing these people and making submissions, he’s getting paid?
Why hasn’t he pushed Letby to waive legal privilege? Why hasn’t she done that? Why wouldn’t she let her new defense team have full access of the details and evidence from her previous defense team, be able to ask them why they took the strategy they did? Why wouldn’t he want it and be pushing her for it? Could it be because some of the defence experts were unable to rule out murder or disagree sufficiently with the prosecution? Possibly, but unless she waives legal privilege we will never know. The fact that she doesn’t waive legal privilege is quite possibly very telling. Ben Myers KC would presumably be able to defend his methodology and strategy then, and to address the ridiculous claims of incompetence.

I would think, based on Dewi Evans numerous contradictory statements, that McDonald is very wisely letting him continue to "not talk to the Press anymore" every couple of weeks as it is providing more evidence for the defence..
EDIT and when speaking of "10 months later" being a long time in this case, as you are, how many months more than 10 is it since you were confident enough to bet that Letby would shortly be charged with more murders? If the prosecution case was so strong (as the Police were so keen to brief to the Press before and during the trial) why do you think we have we not seen that happen yet?

 

[FabioPorkpie]

I would think, based on Dewi Evans numerous contradictory statements, that McDonald is very wisely letting him continue to "not talk to the Press anymore" every couple of weeks as it is providing more evidence for the defence..
EDIT and when speaking of "10 months later" being a long time in this case, as you are, how many months more than 10 is it since you were confident enough to bet that Letby would shortly be charged with more murders? If the prosecution case was so strong (as the Police were so keen to brief to the Press before and during the trial) why do you think we have we not seen that happen yet?

Operation Hummingbird is ongoing.
Early this year Cheshire Police were recruiting further Detective Constable for the investigation and stated in the job advert :

‘The alignment to Operation Hummingbird is anticipated to be for a period of up to three years, dependent on the investigatory requirements.’

So don’t count your chickens yet bud.
Maybe there will be further charges, maybe there won’t be.
Time will tell. Tick tock

 

[theboydom]

Operation Hummingbird is ongoing.
Early this year Cheshire Police were recruiting further Detective Constable for the investigation and stated in the job advert :

‘The alignment to Operation Hummingbird is anticipated to be for a period of up to three years, dependent on the investigatory requirements.’

So don’t count your chickens yet bud.
Maybe there will be further charges, maybe there won’t be.
Time will tell. Tick tock

"The recruitment was for officers to aid in the expanded scope of the investigation. In March 2025, Detective Superintendent Paul Hughes, the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Hummingbird, confirmed the expansion to include corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter, focusing on senior leadership at the Countess of Chester Hospital. "
Linky
Tick tock indeed! Her Barrister must be quaking in his boots at that news!

 

[FabioPorkpie]

"The recruitment was for officers to aid in the expanded scope of the investigation. In March 2025, Detective Superintendent Paul Hughes, the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Hummingbird, confirmed the expansion to include corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter, focusing on senior leadership at the Countess of Chester Hospital. "
Linky
Tick tock indeed! Her Barrister must be quaking in his boots at that news!

I couldn’t care less if she gets further charges. Don’t confuse me saying that I suspect she might with me caring whether she does.
I’m happy for everything to go through the correct legal process, CCRC, Court of Appeal etc.

 

[ForssAwakens]

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS ELECSYS INSULIN; IMMUNOREACTIVE INSULIN TEST SYSTEM

Report in possible high rating, if I understand it correctly the test used with the letby case recorded similar levels at over 900 but when sent to different lab its down at 30. Could possibly be new evidence that wasn’t presented at the case