Mark McDonald, the barrister representing convicted child serial killer Lucy Letby, is set to hand over what he describes as “fresh” medical evidence to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in Birmingham. The evidence includes findings from an international panel of 14 neonatologists and paediatric specialists who argue that poor medical care and natural causes, rather than murder, led to the collapse of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit.
Additionally, a separate report from seven medics will be submitted, claiming that insulin tests on two infants—referred to as Child F and Child L—were unreliable. The report concludes that the jury was misled on key medical and evidential facts, and that the biomechanical test used can produce falsely high insulin results due to interfering antibodies.
Letby, 35, is serving 15 whole-life orders for the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of seven others between June 2015 and June 2016. Her previous appeals to the Court of Appeal were rejected in May and October last year.
McDonald stated: “The fresh evidence totally undermines the prosecution case at trial. This is the largest international review of neonatal medicine ever undertaken, the results of which show Lucy Letby’s convictions are no longer safe.” He urged the CCRC to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal without delay.
However, families of the victims have criticised the campaign. Richard Baker KC, representing them, said the presentation of medical evidence at press conferences “raises the obvious suspicion that the priority for Letby and her supporters is to generate maximum publicity”. The mother of Child C described the media campaign as “misinformed and inaccurate”, adding to the distress of families.
The CCRC will also receive a report on the insulin cases from seven experts, including consultant neonatologists and a forensic toxicologist. The authors stated: “Our inescapable conclusion is that this evidence significantly undermines the validity of the assertions made about the insulin and C-peptide testing presented in court.”
