An interesting article here, looking at the viewpoint of those who were witnesses for the prosecution, some of whom are rightly angered by the ill-informed of their honesty and integrity the Letby innocence mob.
For more than a year, we’ve been examining the scientific evidence and speaking to the experts at the centre of the case.
www.bbc.com
INJECTED AIR
Syringes in hospitals are thrown away and incinerated after they have been used. As a murder weapon, they are virtually untraceable.
According to the prosecution, the babies deteriorated suddenly and unexpectedly. Retired consultant paediatrician Dr Dewi Evans was the prosecution's main medical expert witness. He told us: “Babies don't suddenly drop dead.”
Many exhibited strange skin discolourations that medics on the unit hadn’t seen before. Some babies screamed.
The babies also failed to respond to resuscitation as medics expected. Post-mortem X-rays revealed air in the blood vessels of some.
One of the paper’s authors, Dr Shoo Lee, later appeared as a witness in Letby’s defence, during her unsuccessful attempt to appeal her convictions in April 2024. He said none of the skin discolourations seen on the babies in the Letby case were proof of air embolism.
Lawyers for the prosecution disagreed. They also pointed out that skin discolouration was just one item on their air embolism checklist and that they had never argued that one particular form of skin discolouration was, on its own, proof of air embolism.
(Dr. Mike Hall said) “I think that what the prosecution experts said was misleading for the jury. That’s not the same thing as saying that they deliberately misled the jury.”
It is an allegation that both of the main prosecution experts reject emphatically.
Dr Dewi Evans told us: “Those suggestions are completely flawed and indicate either that the people making them have not seen the clinical evidence or that they are unaware of what constitutes well-being in a premature baby.”
Consultant paediatrician Dr Sandie Bohin, the prosecution's other main expert, who is speaking about the controversy surrounding the case for the first time, said: “I gave evidence under oath 16 times. I told the truth.” "It was my opinion and remains my opinion that these babies were stable prior to their collapse, so I can’t agree with those people that suggested that I misrepresented the stability of the babies and that I misled the jury.
“I think that’s an outrageous suggestion.”
One obvious question is why Dr Hall didn’t testify in court. He clearly disagreed with the prosecution experts, and the fact that he didn’t give evidence meant that Letby had no medical expert witnesses in her defence.
That has prompted some to argue she didn’t have a fair trial.
We asked Dr Hall if he had been willing to testify and he said he had.
He told us he was expecting to give evidence and that he was told of the decision not to call him “right at the last minute”- a decision that left him “at odds” with Letby’s defence team. Dr Hall told us he was so concerned that he even considered writing to the judge to say he believed that the jury had not heard the whole truth.
But the ultimate decision not to call Dr Hall as a witness came from Letby herself.
Now, I wonder why that was!!?
INSULIN
Where you find high levels of insulin, but low levels of C-peptide, there is only one obvious conclusion: the insulin is not natural and has instead been administered from the outside.
That is what investigators found in two of the babies in the Letby case. One had extremely high levels of insulin in his blood and a C-peptide level that was so low that it was unmeasurable. The second baby had an insulin level more than four times higher than the C-peptide level, again indicating it had not been naturally produced.
The medical condition of the babies also fitted with the lab results. In both cases, the babies’ blood sugar levels had plummeted, which is what you would expect to see with insulin poisoning. And while no-one saw Letby poisoning either of the two babies, she was there when they started experiencing symptoms.
Of all the allegations in the case, this one looked like the most solid. In court, Letby herself accepted the scientific evidence that the babies had been given dangerous quantities of insulin. She just denied being responsible. Her lawyers were more cautious. They did not accept the insulin evidence, but they did not say it was incorrect either.
