Lucy Letby - New Evidence, July 2025- Reasons for A Precedent
*Please note: This post has taken approx 3 hours with ai assistance.
I was involved in setting a legal precedent once. We overturned a tribunals' decision to get a new hearing where we won- making legal history- details on request.
Judges at the CCRC must certainly be considering such a precedent with a view to releasing Lucy Letby based on new evidence. If not is the CCRC doing a disservice?
If they're not positive about Letby right now at this date- 14th July 2025- that's reasonable doubt and evidence of unreasonable, unjust detention that is garnering global attention.
New charges may be brought by police.
Have they considered all the points we've made?
Or will they be more ad hominem and not facts?
(Even soft toy collections have been used to condemn Lucy. I don't think numerous toy collectors in the UK- including British Royals (Queen Mary was obsessive according to reports) would approve of that)
Suspicion Becomes Narrative: Miscarriage Risk in the Lucy Letby Case- discussion of justice system failure, and public bias.
I am here to assert, with reasoned confidence, that her conviction in 2023 was not founded on forensic truth but on narrative logic, aesthetic profiling (veracity of- coming soon), and systemic pressure.
In 2025, newly reviewed evidence and expert analysis show that the original case was constructed through omission, emotional projection, and institutional deflection.
1. Facebook Searches Without Context
Letby was condemned for searching Facebook profiles of bereaved parents. The prosecution claimed this demonstrated macabre curiosity. However, no comparative search data was presented:
Did she also search parents of babies who survived?
Did other nurses do the same?
Was this a grieving or trauma-coping behaviour?
Selective presentation of only searches of deceased babies’ families created an illusion of intent, but without a control dataset, the action cannot be interpreted as sinister. This is a textbook case of confirmation bias.
2. Aesthetic Profiling: Teddy Bears, Decor, and Wall Quotes
Letby’s bedroom contained teddy bears, fairy lights, and motivational quotes. These items were used in media and Reddit forums as signals of infantilism or psychological abnormality. The prosecution even introduced photographs of her decor to the jury.
Soft toys
Such items are common among young women, healthcare workers, and people who deal with emotional burnout. The presence of comfort objects is not unusual and has zero evidentiary value. Using them to shape moral disgust is prejudicial.
3. Her Mother’s Colloquialism Twisted
Letby’s mother reportedly said, “I could cry that Lucy might be home for Christmas.” This was portrayed in Reddit and commentary as overly emotional or strange.
In reality, it’s a very common British idiom for emotional relief among the middle classes. To weaponise a grieving parent’s colloquial phrase is both cruel and meaningless.
4. Absence of a Control Group and Statistical Manipulation
The prosecution used a chart showing Letby was on shift during multiple collapses. But no control group was shown. The jury never saw:
Whether other nurses had similar statistical patterns
Whether the events clustered around certain high-risk shifts, not people
Whether the babies in question had higher risk profiles
According to Professor Richard Gill, the statistical argument used was “worse than meaningless.” He noted that chance clusters are common in medicine and that the hospital's internal issues — understaffing, infections, lack of consultant coverage — were ignored.
See Gill's paper: “The Statistics of the Lucy Letby Case”, 2024.
5. 2025 Medical Expert Panel: No Proof of Murder
In early 2025, a panel of 14 international neonatologists and paediatric forensic specialists published a consensus review of the case. Their conclusion:
No forensic evidence of air embolism
No confirmed insulin source without contamination risk
No consistent or reproducible injury patterns across infants
Multiple deaths likely due to underlying conditions or systemic failures
This panel included Dr. Shoo Lee (Canada), Dr. Peter Flemming (UK), and Dr. Jennifer A. Clark (USA), all of whom emphasised that no single mechanism of harm was reliably established.
6. Disclosure Failures by the CQC
The Care Quality Commission failed to disclose *over 4,000 relevant documents* until just weeks before witness hearings.
These included:
Reports of pseudomonas contamination
Complaints about staffing levels
Infection outbreak logs
Emails warning about equipment malfunctions
This late disclosure violates principles of fair trial and mirrors past miscarriages such as Sally Clark, where medical records were withheld.
7. Post-it Notes Misused as Confession
Letby’s handwritten note saying “I am evil, I did this” was widely circulated. It was presented as a confession.
However:
The note was undated and surrounded by conflicting self-statements (“I am not good enough,” “I only ever wanted to help”)
*Multiple* forensic psychologists have commented that the note is consistent with dissociative breakdowns and mental collapse under extreme stress
Professor David Canter, a leading figure in investigative psychology, has observed that similar expressions are not uncommon among wrongly accused individuals experiencing psychological disintegration under pressure
Comparable writings have appeared in known wrongful conviction cases, including Andrew Evans (1972)
8. Swipe Card Data Was Mislabelled
In 2024, the Crown Prosecution Service admitted swipe card data used in trial was incorrectly logged, with entry and exit timestamps reversed in multiple cases. This affected the timeline of at least nine children, including Child K, where Letby was said to have been present when she may have already left the ward.
Timeline evidence should be considered foundational. Its unreliability invalidates key events.
9. No CCTV Footage Presented
Despite cameras being present in the neonatal unit, no CCTV footage was entered into evidence. It remains unexplained why this footage was not retrieved or used to confirm timelines. This is a critical omission.
10. Legal Precedents of Miscarriage of Justice and Overturned Convictions Based on New Evidence
Letby’s conviction reflects features seen in past UK miscarriages of justice, including cases later overturned due to newly uncovered or previously suppressed evidence:
Sally Clark (1999–2003): Convicted of killing her two sons. Released after medical evidence and expert testimony were discredited; key pathology records had been withheld.
Angela Cannings (2002–2003): Freed after new scientific understanding of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and unreliable expert witness testimony.
Donna Anthony (1998–2005): Convicted of murdering two babies, exonerated when forensic pathology was discredited.
Victor Nealon (1996–2013): Spent 17 years in prison; conviction overturned when DNA evidence not tested at trial excluded him.
Andrew Malkinson (2004–2023): Released after 20 years when DNA evidence from another suspect was confirmed and police misconduct in suppressing forensic results was exposed.
Sam Hallam (2005–2012): Convicted of murder based on flawed eyewitness testimony; released when CCTV and phone records proved he could not have been present.
Barry George (2001–2008): Convicted of murdering Jill Dando. Released after fresh ballistic and psychological evidence revealed fundamental flaws in the original conviction.
All of these cases share features now identifiable in the Letby trial: reliance on subjective inference, failure to disclose key evidence, and use of flawed expert testimony.
11. Groupthink and Institutional Self-Protection
When deaths increased, the Countess of Chester Hospital came under scrutiny. Blaming one individual — rather than addressing internal problems — allowed the trust, and later the police and government, to deflect responsibility.
This created a closed narrative:
Internal dissent was silenced
Nonconforming staff were reassigned or ignored
Media fuelled the story rather than challenging it
Groupthink took over. As Irving Janis described in his foundational work on the subject, groupthink thrives when fear, urgency, and institutional preservation override rational dissent.
12. Baby K, Dr. Jayaram, and Post-Mortem Contradictions
A 2025 post from public discussion forums highlighted that Baby K’s post-mortem indicated death from an underlying heart condition. It was also noted that Dr. Jayaram did not tell the coroner at the time about the incident involving Letby allegedly dislodging the endotracheal tube.
His *delayed reporting* raises serious questions about the reliability of the timeline and narrative around that incident.
The public is right to question: can a nurse be jailed for attempted murder in a case where the baby later died of natural causes, and where key medical testimony shifted after the fact?
13. Stuart Gilham Video: “Slandered Nurse?”
In 2025, medical researcher Stuart Gilham released a widely circulated analysis video titled “Lucy Letby – Spectral Boogiewoman or Slandered Nurse?” The video dismantled the prosecution’s timeline using diagrams, consultant witness contradictions, and missing data flags. Gilham raised concerns about how Letby’s silence and personality were weaponised to imply guilt without forensic correlation.
The video has become a cornerstone in public understanding of how flawed this case may be.
14. The 2025 Data Dismantles the Case
No clear or consistent mechanism of death
No coherent timeline
Key data mislabelled or withheld
No pattern of behaviour that stands up to comparison
A post-it note framed as a confession when it matches the profile of emotional collapse-of which she was aware- she had therapy.
Credible expert reviews find no basis for murder
This is not a speculative appeal — the Lucy Letby case is currently under active review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). This review follows a growing international consensus in 2025 that serious factual, procedural, and evidentiary errors infected the original trial.
The volume of newly surfaced disclosures, expert analyses, and systemic contradictions now demands more than media silence or political shielding.
This is a legal emergency.
Here are citations to UK legal cases where convictions were overturned due to new or suppressed evidence. Each includes the legal reference or appeal court name, year, and the reason why the ruling was overturned.
1. R v Sally Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020
Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Reason for Overturning: Discovery that key pathology evidence was withheld and flawed expert testimony (Sir Roy Meadow) was used at trial.
Quote: “The evidence of Professor Meadow was gravely misleading.”
Link: BAILII citation
2. R v Angela Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 01
Court: Court of Appeal
Reason: Doubt cast on conviction due to developing scientific understanding of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) and flawed assumptions of repeated infant deaths implying guilt.
Quote: “Where expert opinion is not properly founded in science, it is not admissible.”
See Cannings judgment summary
3. R v Donna Anthony [2005] EWCA Crim (unreported)
Court: Appeal heard after wrongful conviction linked to Roy Meadow’s discredited evidence.
Outcome: Conviction quashed after scientific reviews and new expert opinion showed natural causes were plausible.
Media ref: BBC News: “Donna Anthony cleared of murdering her children” – April 2005
4. R v Victor Nealon [2013] EWCA Crim 188
Court: Court of Appeal
Reason: DNA evidence from the crime scene — not tested at trial — excluded Nealon and matched an unknown male.
Quote: “The evidence undermines the safety of the conviction.”
See Nealon case summary via Justice Gap
5. R v Andrew Malkinson [2023] EWCA Crim 1111
Court: Court of Appeal
Reason: New DNA evidence and police disclosure failures, including the suppression of forensic doubts.
Quote: “This was a conviction based on an unsafe narrative unsupported by modern forensic methods.”
6. R v Sam Hallam [2012] EWCA Crim 1158
Court: Court of Appeal
Reason: Unsafe conviction due to flawed eyewitness evidence, lack of supporting CCTV or phone location evidence.
Quote: “The case against Hallam was weak from the outset.”
7. R v Barry George [2007] EWCA Crim 2722
Court: Court of Appeal
Reason: Key forensic evidence ruled unreliable; psychological profiling shown to be prejudicial.
Quote: “The evidence was too tenuous to support the conviction.”
For another article discussing Prof.Andy Bilsons assertions on this type of FII profiling -
contact me at lizlucyrobillard.crd.co
liz lucy robillard on lucy letby 2025
Comments
Post a Comment