Experts Challenge ‘Serial Baby Killer’ Nurse Lucy Letby Conviction as ‘Unsafe’

Written by John O'Sullivan on August 26, 2023. Posted in Current News

Lucy Letby has just become Britain’s worst child serial killer and faces a life behind bars. On Friday 18th August 2023, at Manchester Crown Court, she was convicted of 14 crimes: 7 murders and 7 attempted murders while working as a neonatal nurse. Judge Mr Justice Goss said Letby acted with “deep malevolence bordering on sadism.” But all is not as it seems.

In the aftermath of this horrific crime, a fast-growing independent team is being formed advocating for a retrial. Principia Scientific International is joining forces to assist.

After Judge Mr Justice Goss rendered the court’s verdict, numerous medical colleagues who worked with Letby plus independent experts in related fields have expressed grave misgivings. They argue any careful review of the case shows it to be a miscarriage of justice and they are preparing a legal challenge under the banner of the Science on Trial Team.

The team is led by an American scientist, Sarrita Adams who holds a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University and has expertise in rare paediatric diseases.

As a group, we argue that there are multiple issues of scientific error, and the jury was not adequately presented with all the facts. As you will see below, this case bears all the hallmarks of a similar case blown open by a retired professor of statistics at the University of Leiden.

The Science on Trial Team notes the welcome words of Professor Gill, who appears to indicate Letby’s defense team may have missed something critical and the professor argues they should have asked for a broader data set “straight away”. This is crucial because there is an age old principle that guides scientific reasoning: You cannot deduce causality from a correlation, but non-scientists do!

Professor Gill, the statistical expert from that case now argues it is vitally important to compare the chance of a death on one of Letby’s shift with the chance of a death on another shift.

It is our considered opinion that Gill is likely correct, and Lucy Letby did not receive a fair trial because the case showed a broader picture of confirmation bias where potential suspects (the medical consultants senior to Letby) were included in the investigation team relied upon by police and prosecutors.

Right from the outset, the very doctors who were the subject of a previous investigation over neonatal deaths at the hospital were recruited by police and became Letby’s accusers. How, in any objective realm, do potential suspects assist the investigators of another suspect?

Moreover, the key prosecution witness, Dr Dewi Evans (with no expertise in pathology) concocted what many independent experts argue was nothing more than a weak hypothesis that Letby had injected air into her victims, a wild supposition not supported by any science in the medical literature.

The above, and other facets, reveal that the scientific evidence relied upon was below an acceptable standard. At minimum an objective standard would require a retrial. This seems to us especially necessary being that Letby becomes only the fourth woman in UK to receive a whole-life jail term and was convicted on wholly circumstantial and flawed scientific evidence.

However, elements in the mainstream media, so vitriolic in their hatred of Letby, are denouncing those of us who hold the scientific method in higher regard than the court of public opinion.

Britain’s Daily Telegraph was quick to detect blowback against Letby’s conviction reporting:

“The reaction to the Letby trial has parallels with the modern obsession with true crime. These podcasts and TV series often share a mission to save those who they feel are wrongfully accused – they have won devoted followings of people who are grimly fascinated by these stories, and the lines between entertainment and public interest are blurred…. The Letby case illustrates how often the theories that emerge are on the fringe between campaigning and conspiracy.”

The newspaper then further reveals bias by declaring any possible mistrial as a “mad claim that swirls around dark corners of the internet long after a case is closed.”

Yet The Telegraph then goes on to admit that there are experts who see holes in the prosecution case:

“Statistician Richard Gill, 72, is one of those backing a controversial claim that there are holes in Letby’s case, and it should be retried. He doesn’t profess to know for certain that she is innocent but argues there are issues with the way evidence was presented to the court.”

In 2017, when a police investigation into the case of a British nurse suspected of killing babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital hit the newspapers, there was just one thought on Gill’s mind: “Oh no, it’s all going to happen again.”

Seven years before anyone had heard of Letby, Gill successfully campaigned for the retrial of Dutch nurse Lucia de Berk. De Berk stood trial for serial murder in 2003 and was convicted of four murders and three attempted murders. In 2010, after a campaign led by whistleblowers and statisticians including Gill, the case was sent back to court. De Berk was exonerated; her case is now considered one of the worst miscarriages of justice in Dutch history.

The case that Professor Gill and others make begins with statistics. Gill is a retired professor of statistics at the University of Leiden. He describes Letby’s case as “a trial which would never have taken place if anybody had talked to a statistician”.

Gill disputes a table used by the prosecution during the trial to show how Letby was on shift every time one of the babies whose deaths were investigated had died. Crosses mark where a nurse was on shift; the only nurse on the table who was present every time was Letby. The table, Gill says, isn’t a piece of statistical evidence – rather, its data shown out of context.

We decided Principia Scientific International would add our support via our scientists and relevant professionals. Moreover, our collaborations as presenters on TNT Radio’s increasingly popular Sky Dragon Slaying show can assist in revealing to a wide audience the scientific facts supportive of a retrial of Lucy Letby.

Please take some time to review the Science on Trial Team website and understand why we believe our advocacy is so important. If you see merit in this campaign, please consider donating and registering your support. If you have relevant expertise in fields such as law, pathology, statistics, fund raising, etc. please do register and engage with us.

John O’Sullivan is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John co-hosts TNT Radio’s Sky Dragon Slaying show with fellow PSI co-founders, Joe Olson and Joe Postma. He is a seasoned science writer and adept legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the multi-million-dollar ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ debunking alarmist lies about carbon dioxide plus their follow-up climate book. His latest publication, ‘Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon’ exposes dangerous mainstream medical group think and junk science.

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.