Lucy Letby: those experts in full
|
Crime & Punishment
Lucy Letby Edition
|
As some kind of public service I am running a list of experts who have made public statements about Lucy Letby’s case since Rachel Aviv’s, New Yorker investigation of 13 May 2024. This includes experts used in the trial, neonatologist, paediatricians, endocrinologists, toxicologists, statisticians , and lawyers and accredited journalists who have made public statements about the case either in the course of the trial or since.
I will footnote those interventions as time allows.
New additions!
I have added the new insulin experts whose reports have been submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and created a new list for Ms Letby’s former colleagues at the Countess of Chester Hospital who responded to Rule 9 statement requests from the Thirlwall Inquiry for a written statement. I have excluded the one statement that was made anonymously (the point of this exercise being to identify people who are prepared to go on the record), though for the record, it also reflected “no concerns”.
Get in touch
I would especially like to include more independent experts with who have spoken in support of the prosecution. You can reach me on X at @contrarianjolly or by email on enquiries@jollycontrarian.com.
Procedural commentary not included
This is mainly about the substance of the convictions, the quality of the evidence and arguments presented for it, and the fitness of the criminal justice system to deal with that substance.
One or two have commented on the propriety of involved characters or their behaviour outside the context of the trial — whether it is appropriate for barristers to conduct press conferences, whether expert witnesses should engage in public advocacy, and so on. I have not included these remarks as they don’t really get to the heart of the question: should Lucy Letby be given a retrial?
No journalists, no advocates
Neither advocates for the litigation parties, nor journalists, whether investigative or editorial, are included. There are just too many to keep track of, and much of the reported news media is deliberately neutral in any case, and what with the runs at the edges of modern media, it is hard to know where the line between journalist and citizen agitant should be drawn.
No ghouls, misfits or Poundshop Poirots
Speaking of citizen agitants, nor have I included the worshipful company of “Poundshop Poirots”—with whom I proudly identify—who daily engage on Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, YouTube, Facebook, Substack and other venues.
Some of these have made excellent contributions, but they are just part of the weft and weave of public debate.
The idea of this list is to identify where those with direct, credible expertise have made serious interventions that can be measured against their professional reputations.
“Interest”
A word on “interest”: I use it to refer to direct interest in the verdict in the sense of skin in the game: complainants, witnesses and experts briefed (whether or not used) by either side in the litigation. We are talking conflict of interest independence here, not BBC-style impartiality.
Thus anyone who has at any time been employed by the Countess of Chester Hospital has an interest; an expert who has agreed to participate in a panel, without pay and unconditional on lending their support one way or another, has not, even though the panel was organised by the defence.
Those who clearly have a strong opinion, but have no known personal or financial interest in the outcome, are still “independent”.
“Conspiracy theory” interests
Some have insinuated that some experts on one side or the other (or both!) are motivated by some kind of conspiracy. I have looked, and can’t see it (ahhh — but I would say that, if I were part of a conspiracy, wouldn’t I?) I leave open a standing invitation to anyone who cares to enlighten me as to exactly how such a conspiracy would work, and why, but I have yet to hear a plausible story. Open to be persuaded otherwise, but you will need to bring data.
Confirmation bias alert
Being broadly in the “defence” camp, whiling away my lived experience in the cloistered hallways of my own echo-chamber, I’m aware of my own risk of confirmation bias, and that I might have just missed some, so please do get in touch if you think I have missed anyone.
See also
References
- ↑ Lucy Letby Trial recap, Chester Standard, July 3, 2023.
- ↑ Lucy Letby Trial recap, Chester Standard, July 6, 2023: “Professor Owen Arthurs viewed radiographic images for Child M and said they could not support or refute an air embolus.”
- ↑ Lucy Letby: Baby's catastrophic bleed not spontaneous, trial told, BBC, November 29, 2022. Per this report, Dr. Kinsey accepted in cross-examination that her findings did not assist with the cause of death, and that she had limited familiarity with air embolus.
- ↑ Baby had dangerously low blood sugar levels over three days, Letby trial told, The Standard, 24 February 2023.
- ↑ Lucy Letby Trial recap, Chester Standard, July 6, 2023: “Paediatric neuroradiologist Dr Stavros Stivaros provided agreed evidence in which he said Child M had shown signs of brain damage, likely caused by the collapse on April 9, 2016.”
- ↑ This may seem controversial, but in all the reports online there is no indication of what evidence he gave. It is not reported or mentioned in judgments or summing up. I am assuming, therefore, it was uncontroversial evidence, that may have admitted by consent as a witness statement and not cross-examined. Happy to be corrected.
- ↑ Jump up to: 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 Member of International Expert Panel
- ↑ Specialist doctor ‘felt misled’ about suspicion over baby deaths, Lucy Letby inquiry hears, ITV, 12 November 2024. Dr. Hawdon’s contemporaneous review concluded that the deaths of Babies A, I, O and P – were “unexpected and unexplained.” Her evidence to the Thirlwall Inquiry was that she may have taken a different approach to her review if she knew of the consultants’ suspicions of murder.
- ↑ Not called.
- ↑ My evidence might have changed killer nurse Lucy Letby's trial Express, August 26, 2024.
- ↑ Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence Guardian 9 Jul 2024.
- ↑ Jump up to: 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 Summary of Joint Expert Witness Report on Baby F and L.
- ↑ Why I believe Lucy Letby is probably innocent Sunday Times, March 30 2025.
- ↑ Jump up to: 14.0 14.1 Lucy Letby: The New Evidence, Channel 5, September 2024.
- ↑ File on Four, BBC, 1 October 2024
- ↑ Lucy Letby Expert ‘changes mind’ over how babies died, The Times, December 16 2024
- ↑ Accept that Lucy Letby is a killer, no matter how “nice” she seems, The Herald, 24 March 2025. (Dr. Wilson is often cited as being pro-prosecution, but his views seem more nuanced than that. For example, his article closes as follows:
“I’m still left wondering that if her case had been heard in Scotland would the prosecution have been dismissed as ‘not proven’?”
- ↑ The actual evidence against Lucy Letby, The Times, February 5, 2025.
- ↑ Jump up to: 19.0 19.1 Is Lucy Letby guilty? Professor Norman Fenton interviews Law Health Tech from Twitter and Substack
- ↑ Former Cumbrian director of health voices concerns over Letby trial, Cumberland News and Star, March 31, 2025.
- ↑ Lucy Letby Must Be Allowed an Appeal, The Daily Sceptic, 11 September 2023
- ↑ Suspected serial killers and unsuspected statistical blunders Sage, 1 April 2024.
- ↑ Sample post on X.com, December 30, 2024
- ↑ Lucy Letby: Experts tell BBC about medical evidence concerns BBC, 1 October 2024.
- ↑ The flaws in the Lucy Letby case, Unherd, July 24, 2024.
- ↑ Lucy Letby: Serial killer or a miscarriage of justice? Daily Telegraph, July 9, 2024. There is some suggestion that Professor Wolfsdorf walked this back in Judith Moritz’ book, but it is not well reported. Moritz quotes Wolfsdorf as saying:
“All I can confidently state is the insulin: C-peptide molar ratio ... is consistent with factitious [deliberately introduced] hypoglycaemia.”
As regular readers know, “consistent with” is often used for heavy lifting, and Ms. Moritz asks a lot of it here, concluding — these are her, and not Professor Wolfsdorf’s, words — that:
“In other words, the surest conclusion we can draw from Baby L’s test result is that he was poisoned with insulin.”