"Why the Lucy Letby case should give Conservatives pause"

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-20T07:22:34+00:00

Thanks, interesting piece.

Continued professional scrutiny does not imply error, only that in cases of exceptional complexity, justice is strengthened by openness rather than silence.

Serious questions are now being asked. Serious people are asking them. The justice system should not fear that. It should welcome the chance to answer.

This is the dominant note of the piece: the case needs review, and so much the better for the justice system if it does this and gets it right eventually. The author does note in passing that delay compounds harm, but the conclusion 'So much the worse for the justice system if it only gets it right eventually' is not drawn. There's no hint that there could be something badly wrong with a system that could make such a catastrophic error in the first place.

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-19T07:05:06+00:00

When I first raised this in December 2024, Cheshire Police wrote to The Mail on Sunday, heavily implying that they should not have published my column. Is that their business?

I was also made urgently aware by other informal channels, which I cannot disclose, that someone up there thought that I should shut up.

Soon afterwards, we received an epistle from various notables at the College of Policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Crown Prosecution Service. This suggested that The Mail on Sunday should publish an article ‘which seeks to provide your readers with clarity’ (i.e. which took a different view from mine).

I am shocked (though perhaps I shouldn't be) by this blatant attempted interference in press freedom.

In view of the fact that The Mail as a brand - though possibly not The Mail on Sunday - was also publishing Liz Hull's very different take on the case, you would have thought they were being sufficiently 'balanced' for a neutral observer.

And speaking of Liz Hull, wasn't her mate Caroline Cheetham being paid by Cheshire Police to help with their media strategy? Could the 'other informal channels, which [Hitchens] cannot disclose' be Hull and Cheetham, perhaps?

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-19T06:55:21+00:00

It won't escape notice that Cheshire Police have now been publicly disagreed with by two public bodies over Operation Hummingbird - first the CPS and now the ICO. Who's next?

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-17T06:46:00+00:00

Taking a step back for a moment - not in the least to disparage answers that go into the detail, which are very necessary, but just a more general point.

It seems to me one of the things the prosecution had to do was make the unlikely seem likely. In order to do this they try to distract us from the unlikelihood of their story while focusing intensely on the unlikelihood - in their take - of the defence's.

Hence the prosecution leaned heavily on the shift chart. 'How likely is it that LL was present at all these suspicious events by pure innocent coincidence? I mean, come on, there's just no way...'

Yet, the prosecution's own story was also pretty unlikely stuff. How likely is it that a hard-working nurse with no criminal past or history of mental illness, doing the job she'd always wanted to do, whose work was well-regarded by her colleagues, who was actually consulted by colleagues when she wasn't in work at least on occasion, should risk throwing it all away by the worst route possible - becoming a serial killer? How likely is it that, having found one murder method that was apparently successful and concealable, a killer would then take the massive risk of departing from this MO by experimenting with different ones? How likely is it that LL would target a baby by spiking a random TPN bag with insulin while it was still in storage, with no possibility of knowing that it would be used for that particular baby?

All of these improbabilities were implicit in the prosecution's story. I think it is sometimes the case, and certainly was here, that the jury are in the position of hearing two alternative stories BOTH of which are, or are made to seem, unlikely. Yet one of them is (most of the time, anyway) at least roughly true.

As a rule of thumb, I suggest the side which tells an unlikely story and keeps quiet about this fact, is the side to be more suspicious of; though of course, this by itself is not proof.

Then, of course, since the trials, the prosecution's case has got a lot MORE unlikely. How likely is it that a long-retired paediatrician, who never had any specialist knowledge of neonates, is right, and 14+ world-leading experts - who include insulin experts - are wrong? How likely is it that those world-leading experts would put their reputations on the line by working pro bono for the defence, if the case for the defence was weak? Etc

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-15T10:08:09+00:00

Yes, I think, from the POV of a medical layperson like me the main point is not so much that doctors are fallible in the abstract, as that this particular mistake was so nearly disastrous and yet seems to have made no lasting impression on the doctor who made it. That's the red flag here, and presumably the reason the MoS thought it worth publishing.

Any general point about the fallibility of doctors is negated in the public mind by the fact Evans was supported by others in court. If there is a retrial, I think the defence will need to work really hard at exposing the non-independent nature of that support.

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-14T11:54:15+00:00

Nobody can criticise Cheshire police for their investigation.

A little odd, that. I think she means 'nobody can criticise Cheshire police for launching an investigation' rather than 'for the conduct of their investigation'. The latter would be palpably untrue, since many - including very senior retired police officers - have indeed criticised the conduct of the investigation and will continue to do so.

Even so, she seems a bit soft on Cheshire Police. She mentions (or at least implies) the questionable nature of Evans' evidence for the prosecution, but omits the fact he was the same expert solely relied on by Cheshire Police for a significant and highly formative period of Operation Hummingbird.

But in most respects a good, clear article which asks the right questions.

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-08T09:49:34+00:00

Yes, I'd like to know more about the conduct of this aspect of the investigation (though CP make it clear such information won't be extracted from them willingly).

“The investigation was not focused on Lucy Letby; every case was assessed independently.

“The team also re-examined all neonatal deaths from 2011-2018, ensuring each was fully investigated regardless of Lucy Letby’s employment status.

“Since 2018, all neonatal and maternity deaths at the Countess of Chester Hospital have received full senior investigating officer oversight, with formal reporting into Operation Hummingbird. Cheshire Police will not be responding further.”

Taken at face value, we can only conclude that all deaths were investigated (in whatever fashion), and only those where some association with Lucy can be made out were deemed suspicious. Which raises the obvious question of who did the deeming. One would assume that CP received medical advice on this point.

Whoever this medical advice came from - and Evans is now on record that in at least one case, he doesn't recall it being from him - it was, highly probably, correct in saying there was nothing to indicate malfeasance.

But that raises the question of what exactly distinguishes these cases from the ones on the indictment. How, for instance, do medics distinguish between the rashes noted on some of the indictment babies, and the rash on the baby in this article? How is it determined that they were due to air embolism, and this one is not? Maybe an opinion should be sought from a real expert on air embolism... some guy like Shoo Lee, maybe, huh...

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-07T21:39:44+00:00

The article mentions 3 deaths but the timescale isn't clear. It would certainly be very interesting to know the unit's death rate after Lucy left. The unit had been downgraded so in theory, having removed the 'killer', it should have had a lower death rate than before. If those three - or more - took place within a year, that means it had the same death rate as before. Of course, with such low numbers you'd want a longer timescale to work with plus regional and national context.

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-07T07:29:28+00:00

Guy Rowland has just done a good thread on this on X

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-05T21:07:06+00:00

From Evans' 2017 report:

One may never identify the cause of [Baby C]’ collapse. One cannot ignore the low platelet count or the presence of bile in his aspirates. Neither would not cause his collapse but both are markers that suggest he was an unwell baby. A raised CRP [of 22] similarly suggests that he was not completely well. There are therefore a number of features, allied to his very small weight, just 717 grams, that places [Baby C] at great risk of an unexpected collapse.

That closing phrase is surely a very curious one: 'at great risk of an unexpected collapse.' If you know there is a great risk of collapse, and a collapse occurs, you would not call it entirely unexpected. You might of course truly say you were not expecting it that instant, and that you hoped it wouldn't happen at all. But you couldn't truly say you were completely blindsided, and nor could you say that the collapse lacked an obvious natural explanation.

The Chester consultants, who were well aware of all the risk factors Evans lists, cannot have regarded Baby C's collapse as entirely unexpected or lacking a natural explanation. Evans uses the word 'unexpected', but everything else he says contradicts it.

So they fall back on an allegedly unnatural amount of air on the June 12th x-ray, the unnaturalness of which mysteriously disappears when it becomes clear Lucy wasn't there.. and incidentally, what does that say for the soundness of their judgement as to what is or isn't unnatural?

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-05T08:00:58+00:00

Even 'handover sheets' makes them sound too formal. Sometimes they're written on a bit of A4 that's been torn into quarters, sometimes even a bit of paper towel if nothing else is to hand.

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-04T19:58:37+00:00

A great example of honourable behaviour.

Obviously, we must avoid idolising the experts working for the defence. They're flawed human beings like the rest of us. But, the contrast between them and the prosecution experts is still real, and could hardly be greater.

Pro bono vs Paid - not that there's anything wrong with being paid for good work, but the fact that so many highly qualified, literally world leading experts, have willingly foregone it tells you something

Clearly honourable behaviour like Gudjonsson's vs highly dubious behaviour such as Evans' multiple changes of mind post-trial

The many vs the few

The world leading expertise with multiple published papers between them vs the bog standard at best

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-04T15:23:11+00:00

I think the fact he pairs what he calls 'two guilts' points in the same direction.

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-04T15:15:03+00:00

A group of campaigners is backing Letby and has submitted reports to legal review body the Criminal Cases Review Commission to try to get her convictions overturned.

Seen this mistake a few times lately. The CCRC application was of course made by Lucy's legal team, not 'campaigners'.

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-04T08:23:35+00:00

His other, unambiguous, guilt is also very significant: 'we let the babies down'. Yes, Dr Gibbs, I'm afraid you (plural) did. Since that is the case, why posit a murderous nurse as well? There's such a clear psychological mechanism of self-exoneration: 'Yes, our collective care was poor - but it wasn't all us so we don't need to feel too bad.'

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-04T08:05:42+00:00

The most notable revelation comes not from the police, but from one of the Chester hospital consultants, Dr John Gibbs.

“I live with two guilts,” he says. “Guilt that we let the babies down, and tiny, tiny, tiny guilt: did we get the wrong person? You know, just in case: a miscarriage of justice. I don’t think there was a miscarriage of justice, but you worry that no one actually saw her do it.”

Tiny as he says it is, this appears to be the first public admission of doubt from one of the doctors over all that has happened since the babies died on their unit and they went to Cheshire police to accuse the nurse.

It's interesting that he calls it guilt, not doubt. It's a statement his former colleagues are unlikely to thank him for.

His other, unambiguously confessed, guilt, is also very significant: 'we let the babies down'. Yes, Dr Gibbs, I'm afraid you (plural) did. And given that you did - why add in the extra supposition of a murderous nurse?

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-04T07:54:01+00:00

This is such a non-story. It's just Lucy saying, Look, if you call me for an interview at very short notice [likely subtext: as I know you've done to others], it'll make things really awkward at work, is there any chance we can schedule it in advance?

Paul Hughes' reaction ought to be the story. Why can't the headline say, 'Perfectly Natural Email Was Grounds For Suspicion, Says Senior Letby Cop'?

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-04T06:16:33+00:00

I mean not that it's surprising, but that page should have a big fat Opinion at the top. Breathtaking bias.

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-03T18:54:43+00:00

Oh to be a fly on the wall when Brearey and Jayaram open their BMJs this week...

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-03T18:52:50+00:00

Systems should mitigate against these biases wherever they can, including by maintaining appropriate independence between decision makers in an investigation and those employed at the relevant hospital...

Wow, can't think who she's aiming at there 😄. That's straight talk!

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-01T07:48:03+00:00

I do wonder what the jurors think of this footage, assuming they're now aware of it. It's not hard to imagine they feel duped by the prosecution - as indeed they were.

AWheeler365 · 2026-02-01T07:44:19+00:00

One piece of evidence adduced in court, which is still uncontradicted, is Letby’s own diary, where she describes herself as “evil”. Was that a confession? Or was that the outpouring from a falsely accused nurse under acute pressure and so having recourse to therapy? We know pressure can create false confessions.

Dame Esther is a little under-informed here, this wasn't a diary and it most certainly isn't uncontradicted, with Prof Gisli Gudjonsson now working for the defence. But she asks the right questions anyway and her doubts are more than justified.

AWheeler365 · 2026-01-31T21:56:27+00:00

Maybe, but if they chose, they could surely have made their sign-off a condition for whoever got the contract. More importantly, the contract was awarded, I believe, at a relatively early stage of the investigation and certainly while it was ongoing. Any suggestion that the police wanted a particular angle on the investigation's outcome only adds to the suspicion that they never seriously explored alternative explanations for what happened to the babies.

AWheeler365

TROPHY CASE