Child serial killer Lucy Letby did not murder seven babies at a hospital neonatal unit, a panel of experts has claimed, after a report found each infant had died from natural causes and poor medical care.
Dr Shoo Lee, who assembled a panel of 14 specialists including world-leading neonatologists in a review of the medical evidence in the case, concluded “we did not find any murders” as Letby’s legal team submitted their findings to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
The former nurse, 35, is serving 15 whole life orders for the murder of seven infants and the attempted murder of seven others between June 2015 and June 2016 at the Countess of Chester Hospital, but has continued to protest her innocence.
Dr Lee, the president of the Canadian Neonatal Foundation, convened the group of experts following concerns over the medical evidence used in her trial.
The panel reviewed the seven murders and attempted murders and, in each case, found death or injury was due to natural causes or errors in medical care.
He presented the bombshell findings at a press conference led by Letby’s lawyers and Conservative MP Sir David Davis, who described her convictions as “one of the major injustices of modern times”.
Dr Lee said: “In summary, ladies and gentlemen, we did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were deemed to be natural causes or just bad medical care.”
Letby’s lawyer, Mark McDonald, said: “The reason why Lucy Letby was convicted was because of the medical evidence that was presented to the jury. That today has been demolished.”
He called for her case to be urgently referred to the Court of Appeal, adding: “There is overwhelming evidence that the conviction is unsafe. If Dr Shoo Lee is correct then no crime was committed.”
Retired medic Dr Lee, who co-authored a 1989 academic paper on air embolism in babies which was cited in the trial but whose research has since been superseded, told the press conference that “we are here to tell the truth”.
Speaking of the victim’s families, he said: “We understand their stress and their anguish, and our work is not meant to cause more distress.
“Rather, it is meant to give them comfort and assurance in knowing the truth about what really happened.”
Dr Lee questioned the cause of death for each of the babies killed by Letby, who was said to have targeted the infants in a variety of ways including injecting air into their intravenous lines.
In the case of Baby 1, he argued the infant died from a blood clot or thrombosis, and there was no evidence of air embolism.
Similarly for Baby 4, who was said to have been stable before Letby injected air into her IV line, the panel claimed there was no evidence of air embolism and that the infant died of systemic sepsis and pneumonia after medics failed to treat the mother with antibiotics when she was pregnant.
In another case, where Letby was accused of injecting insulin into the baby’s infusion bag, the experts said the infant suffered prolonged hypoglycaemia because of sepsis.
Dr Lee was also critical of the care provided at Countess of Chester Hospital, claiming that if it were in Canada – where he lives – it would have been shut down.
The panel also included the former president of the British Medical Association, Professor Neena Modi, who said there were “very, very plausible reasons” for each of the deaths, including delayed diagnosis and “inappropriate or absent treatment”.
Letby lost two bids last year to challenge her convictions at the Court of Appeal – in May, for seven murders and seven attempted murders, and in October, for the attempted murder of a baby girl for which she was convicted by a different jury at a retrial.
At the first of those appeals, a bid to admit fresh evidence from Dr Lee was rejected as three senior judges concluded there had been no prosecution expert evidence diagnosing air embolus solely on the basis of skin discolouration.
Dr Lee said he has recently updated his academic paper and found no cases of skin discolouration linked to air embolism by the venous system.
In December, Mr McDonald said that – separately from the CCRC application – he would also seek permission from the Court of Appeal to apply to reopen her case on the grounds that Dr Dewi Evans, the lead prosecution medical expert at her trial, was “not reliable“.
Retired consultant paediatrician Dr Evans said concerns regarding his evidence were “unsubstantiated, unfounded, inaccurate”.
Following the shocking findings, the prime minister’s spokesperson said the case was “horrendous” and “shocked the nation”, but said it was up to the independent CCRC to review her application.
A CCRC spokesperson said: “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.
“We ask that everyone remembers the families affected by events at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.
“We have received a preliminary application in relation to Ms Letby’s case, and work has begun to assess the application. We anticipate further submissions being made to us.”
The spokesperson warned it was not possible to determine how long it would take to review this application, adding that a “significant volume of complicated evidence” was presented at trial.
A public inquiry into how the nurse committed her crimes is also under way, and detectives from Cheshire Constabulary are continuing their review of the care of some 4,000 babies admitted to the hospital while Letby worked as a neonatal nurse.
A CPS spokesperson said: “Two juries and three appeal court judges have reviewed a multitude of different strands of evidence against Lucy Letby. She has been convicted on 15 separate counts following two separate jury trials.
“In May 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed Letby’s leave to appeal on all grounds – rejecting her argument that expert prosecution evidence was flawed.”
A spokesperson at the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust said: “Due to the Thirlwall Inquiry and the ongoing police investigations, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this time.”
