• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Concerns over baby killer ignored? / Nurse Lucy Letby killed babies in her care

The CPS has announced there will be no further charges against Letby.

No criminal charges against Lucy Letby in relation to further allegations of deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk www.cps.gov.uk

"We received a file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary in July 2025 asking us to consider further allegations against Lucy Letby, 36, relating to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital.
“Following a thorough review of that evidence, we have decided that no criminal charges should be brought in respect of those further allegations.
“The Crown Prosecution Service considered offences of murder and attempted murder in respect of two infants who died and attempted murder in respect of seven infants who survived.
“We concluded that the evidential test was not met in any of those cases.
“As always, this decision was made independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.
“The CPS has written to the families involved and will offer meetings to explain our decision-making in further detail. Our thoughts remain with them.”

This relates to 11 new charges of murder and attempt murder.
 
If the evidence presented by Cheshire Constabulary, is in the same form as before, as in they use statistics, coincidences and witness opinion to justify charging Letby and the CPS has decided this time not to proceed, that means they should not have prosecuted the other charges.
 
The proof will be in the pudding. One reason McDonald claims Letby hasn't waived legal privilege - which is the usual protocol when a client changes solicitors - is because of those 'ongoing inquiries', so he, McDonald, could keep up the pretence as to why he has no clue as to why Letby didn't call any defence witnesses other than the plumber. Now he has no excuse for not knowing and indeed, the CRCC will fully expect to see this information. Her silk - one of the most expensive in the land - had a good reason for not calling her 'defence'. Her only hope is a technicality. However, Justice Goss, equally soundly legally expert in making sure any of his judgments are watertight solid will have left any such 'loopholes' firmly sealed.
 
Vixen said:
The proof will be in the pudding. One reason McDonald claims Letby hasn't waived legal privilege - which is the usual protocol when a client changes solicitors - is because of those 'ongoing inquiries', so he, McDonald, could keep up the pretence as to why he has no clue as to why Letby didn't call any defence witnesses other than the plumber. Now he has no excuse for not knowing and indeed, the CRCC will fully expect to see this information. Her silk - one of the most expensive in the land - had a good reason for not calling her 'defence'. Her only hope is a technicality. However, Justice Goss, equally soundly legally expert in making sure any of his judgments are watertight solid will have left any such 'loopholes' firmly sealed.
Click to expand...
This is drivel.
 
Letby has at last waived privilege:


11 December 2025Waiver of privilege and defence material received
This is some ten months after CCRC first asked for it.


3 February 2025Preliminary application received
13 February 2025CCRC requests legal waiver of privilege, which would allow access to defence files

Chair’s statement on Lucy Letby application review - Criminal Cases Review Commission

Lucy Letby – application timeline There has been much discussion in the press and on social media about Lucy Letby’s
ccrc.gov.uk ccrc.gov.uk
 
A doctor who gave crucial expert evidence about insulin poisoning for the prosecution of the nurse Lucy Letby was under investigation by the medical regulator at the time due to serious concerns about his fitness to practise.
Click to expand...
www.theguardian.com

Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness-to-practise investigation during trial

Exclusive: Jury was never told about inquiry into key prosecution witness Peter Hindmarsh, which looked into allegations including of harm to patients
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
catsmate said:
www.theguardian.com

Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness-to-practise investigation during trial

Exclusive: Jury was never told about inquiry into key prosecution witness Peter Hindmarsh, which looked into allegations including of harm to patients
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
And he ducked out of the consequences of said investigation by resigning his medical positions and quitting medicines altogether.

The whole case is falling apart, and the CCRC should be referring the case for appeal recommending dismissal of all charges. This is another Sally Clark case, the police pursuing an innocent person based on the biased witterings of "experts" who couldn't differentiate their arses from their elbows (if they weren't outright lying {Meadows didn't know what he was talking about, I'm not so sure about Evans, he has all the hallmarks of another Wakefield or Regnerus).
 
Vixen said:
Because Letby campaigners argue along such lines, that the jury are too stupid to understand medical issues or that the parents were somehow too stricken by grief to be rational and that they only believe in Letby's guilt because they, too, do not understand medicine
Click to expand...

No, they mainly do not. What they do mainly say is that, if the jury had been presented with a fuller explanation, as it is now known, they might have come to a different verdict, that of not guilty, because of reasonable doubt. All the discussion about Dr Lee and his paper is that Dr Dewi Evans' expert evidence is not the sole, possible explanation. If Evans is wrong it's not unreasonable to conclude that the jury - who is not at fault, at all - might have decided differently.

On journalists, Peter Hitchens has been saying this all along; Dories is jumping on the band-waggon. Not that they matter.
 
More nonsense from Felicity Lawrence - who lied to GUARDIAN readers that a therapist told Letby to write her post-it notes - Professor Hindmarsh was legally obliged to disclose his disciplinary actions, as an expert witness, and the defence was legally obliged to have the same disclosure. Ben Myers had every opportunity to challenge Hindmarsh's opinion, which had been deemed by Justice Goss as permissible. It was brought up at the trial so hardly qualifies as new evidence under the point of law needed to be granted an appeal.
 
The Common Potato said:
No, they mainly do not. What they do mainly say is that, if the jury had been presented with a fuller explanation, as it is now known, they might have come to a different verdict, that of not guilty, because of reasonable doubt. All the discussion about Dr Lee and his paper is that Dr Dewi Evans' expert evidence is not the sole, possible explanation. If Evans is wrong it's not unreasonable to conclude that the jury - who is not at fault, at all - might have decided differently.

On journalists, Peter Hitchens has been saying this all along; Dories is jumping on the band-waggon. Not that they matter.
Click to expand...
Dr Shoo Lee cunningly omitted four papers from his revised 2024 paper, that contradicted his narrative. He even announced he was coming to Letby's rescue like a White Knight by presenting a new paper. The Court of Appeal previously allowed him to present his arguments by Zoom in an appeal application that was thrown out, Lee's claims not considered relevant to the case and how it was decided.

Most Letby fans never followed the ten-month trial, simply reading hysterical puff pieces in the tabloids or PRIVATE EYE, not realising the hacks were paid to churn out clickbait PR-sponsored 'opinion' pieces.

We are still being regularly fed 'COULD JEREMY BAMBER BE A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE???' fifteen years later.

The moral is, don't believe what you read in the papers, especially if the headline includes the word, 'Could...?'
 
By the way, the latest Felicity Lawrence article is not 'exclusive' it has been common knowledge for years that Hindmarsh was being investigated by BMA for unrelated issues.
 
Vixen said:
Letby wasn't convicted on statistics. Cheshire Police made a conscious decision to charge and try each case - with the approval of CPS - on its own individual merits. That way, a defendant, such as de Berk, can't just get off the charges because some statistician somewhere made a wrong calculation [cf. Roy Meadows and Sally Clarke]. Gill is furious that he can't meddle in this case, He's a nice guy - we follow each other - but he is basically a Lord Longford do-gooder somehow besotted with nurses. Gill decided Letby was innocent before the trial even started.

<sfx hysterical cockney voice booms out over the internet>

"LEAVE IT, FIXX, 'E AIN'T WORFF IT!!!"
Click to expand...
The reasons to look at Letby the assumptions behind those investigations, were predicated in faulty statistics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom