The neonatal unit where Lucy Letby worked suffered an outbreak of bacteria lethal to babies in 2015-16, a leaked risk report shows. The Telegraph has the story.
In August 2023, Letby was convicted of the murders of seven newborns and the attempted murders of six other infants. A retrial in July also found her guilty of the attempted murder of another child.
Since the conviction, numerous scientists, statisticians and doctors have expressed their concern about the evidence presented to the jury regarding shift patterns, medical conclusions and the standard of care at the Countess of Chester.
It has now emerged that at the time when infant mortality rates spiked at the Countess of Chester hospital between 2015 and 2016 – the years in which Letby was convicted of killing the infants – the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa had colonised taps in the nurseries of the neonatal unit, including intensive care.
Pseudomonas is known to be lethal to vulnerable babies. In 2012, a premature baby died and 12 others needed treatment at Southmead Hospital in Bristol after an outbreak of a water-borne bacterium.
Three premature babies also died after contracting the bug at the Royal Jubilee Maternity Hospital in Belfast January 2012. In that case, sink taps were found to be the source of infection. A baby had died from the same infection six weeks earlier in Derry.
David Livermore, Professor of Medical Microbiology, at the University of East Anglia said: “Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an environmental organism that likes moisture.
“It can be lethal in newborns, especially premature ones, who lack a properly developed immune system.
“From mid-2015 to mid-2016 there were around 17 infant deaths at the Countess of Chester unit.
“We are asked to believe that this comprised two superimposed clusters, one of seven murders by Lucy Letby, and one where, to quote the crown prosecution expert, they died for the usual problems why small babies die: haemorrhage, infection, congenital problems.
“It is simpler to believe that we are looking at a single spike of fatal infections in a chaotic unit.”
The risk report leaked to the Telegraph, showed that the Countess of Chester hospital had been dealing with Pseudomonas since at least May 2015 when there were fears about transferring babies from nearby Arrowe Park Hospital.
The risk score was reduced in August 2015, when there had been no infections in neonates, but in December 2015, a tap in intensive care tested positive for the bug and had to be replaced.
In the same month a tap in another baby ward also tested positive but the report warned that there was no capacity to replace it, so filters were fitted instead. The report said the filters would remain in place “until we get the all clear”.
Notes show that by the middle of February 2016, staff had still not received this confirmation.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
She’s a scapegoat for the corrupt and wholly incompetent NHS……
She’s innocent.
She may be innocent, but it seems certain that various supposedly expert witnesses gave testimony that implied a certainty that the evidence did not support. Just as in the early days of DNA profiling or the sub-postmasters scandal, the experts routinely seem to see themselves as part of the prosecution team.
I wonder why. A good prosecution expert must get loads of work from the CPS. Experts should be hired by the court as well as any biased ones.
Well done to the Telegraph & DS for this extraordinary discovery, offering hope for true justice in this case.
I thought it strange that her most insistent accuser was the very same Indian doctor in charge of the unit, who would have been held responsible had he not succeeded in deflecting blame onto her.
I don’t think credit is due to The Telegraph. They fail to credit the true sources for this information. Dr Scott McLachlan in conversation with Prof Norman Fenton some months ago covered this. Scott McLachlan also pointed out how another hospital had the same problem and a nurse was blamed. She was reported to the police. Babies were dying with the same symptoms. And they too had a sewage water contamination issue. But then they worked out the source of the issue and all charges agains the nurse were dropped. Letby’s defence didn’t even do sufficient research to use this as a defence to her case. Nor did they have any mathematical competence and properly defend the illegitimate use of statistics made by the prosecution. The damned Telegraph never credit alternative news sources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k12f_VFCbtI
I am not in a position to judge , but she has a whole life sentence and given that much cleverer people than me are expressing doubts about the conviction , it is essential that her case be reviewed .
Nobody wants to see an innocent person serve punishment for a crime they didn’t commit. I do, however, find myself raising an eyebrow at the reasonably widespread belief that she is definitely innocent. I’m no expert in the case, but I’m aware that some of the case against Letby focused on the coincidental timings of Letby being on-duty when there were deaths, and that her colleagues became very suspicious of her. Now, it is possible that the timings were indeed a coincidence, but it is also possible that bacteria doesn’t know when Letby is on shift. I don’t know if she’s innocent or guilty, but I’m pretty sure society wouldn’t voice the same collective air of such assured certainty of innocence if Letby was male.
I suggest you do some digging…. The so called evidence that justifies her conviction is beyond a joke…
All you need to know regarding the deaths vs Letby on duty charts is that one could be created for every staff member and that deaths occurred in proportion to the illness of the neonates when she was not on duty.
Statistics used incorrectly and with malice aforethought.
You haven’t read the other articles perhaps? It goes way beyond that. Experts basically said “Since we can’t find a cause it must be …”. There was no evidence to base the “must be” upon.
Whilst one cannot dismiss the verdict it is imperative to plug the holes with genuine answers. The fact she was on duty is a mere convenience given the immense gaps in evidence.
Thanks for the replies. I’ll certainly dig a little deeper, but I doubt that I’ll be able to draw any other conclusion other than that Letby being on duty during many of the deaths, and that her colleagues became suspicious of her, may be a coincidence or may not. I’m certainly not ruling out another establishment cover-up, but my gut tells me it’s a strange choice for a patsy. I could well be wrong of course. Regardless of the outcome there’s only one person that will ever really know – Letby.
Imagine… all around her started whispering and pointing fingers behind her back, and suddenly, just like that, everyone just knows it’s her what did it!
“Buuuuuurrrrn the witch!”
https://youtu.be/gNB0CaKI3IM?si=-SZl31FwTWtTbHAb
Some interesting comments on that video, too:
— “Many years ago someone I worked with was on a jury for a serious case. She was a very intelligent person and was horrified that the jury convicted the guy, with her being the only one standing against the guilty verdict. She said all the evidence was unsafe and speculative but that the others who also thought it unsafe agreed to go with the majority. Its frightening that this can happen.”
— “Lucy had no choice but to agree that two babies were harmed with insulin, because her defence counsel inexplicably agreed before the first trial that this was the case, even though there was no credible evidence to support this. The two babies allegedly harmed are alive and well eight years on. The police were only called in after Lucy won a grievance procedure against doctors, and an RCPCH investigation in 2016 cleared Lucy and criticised doctors and consultants for the atrocious conditions on the neonatal unit.”
— “I was a Nurse for 25 years working in ICU ( Adult not Paediatrics). I followed the trial very closely and was shocked at the conviction. Hitchens is correct about her defence team, who time after time missed many opportunities when questioning the prosecution witnesses. If I recall the only witness the defence called was the hospital plumber. A retrial will in time be called.”
Indeed….. . Jurys and Group Think!
I’ll be honest, I’m pretty convinced Letby did nothing. She’s been setup. There are so many holes it makes a knackered fishing net look pristine.
I’ve had first hand experience of just how corrupt our judicial system is…., redacting court documents at will to cover their own backs
I wouldn’t trust them as far as I can throw them..
And Starmer is a Lawyer…. Say no more
Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Is there reasonable doubt?
If based on circumstantial evidence, then that is pretty poor.
In all situations like this the truth is what every decent law abiding person wants. None of us commenting on articles about this case will know what the truth is here. It is to be hoped the truth can be found. All I can say is that I find it very difficult to believe that a person could be found guilty of killing 7 babies if the evidence for that was not conclusive. ———But as I always say, what people believe is neither here nor there.
Please see my post above replying to Insurrectionist, and the video of Peter Hitchens he linked.
The problem for this thesis is that the babies died from air embolism and insulin poisoning, not an infection. Experienced medics had difficulty diagnosing some of the problems because the babies concerned displayed symptoms so unusual given their conditions that the courses of remedial action were not clear. Medics of course were not expecting deliberate sabotage, so it didn’t occur to them to look for it initially. (Did any other babies have this infection?)
There is an excellent YouTube channel that has documented entire sections of court transcripts of the evidenc. This when knitted together demonstrates Letby’s guilt. Watch “Crime Scene 2 Courtroom.” It’s the equivalent of the Daily Sceptic when compared with the BBC.
Many have expressed their concerns about Lucy letby’s trial and its outcome. Mumblings that the neonatal unit had a higher than average level infant deaths and Lucy was the scapegoat. Surely, a well qualified defence attorney, as well as a well qualified judge should have given this young lady a fair trial.
Thanks, Will. It is notable that the Channel 5 programme last night (well worth watching) did not mention the pseudomonas report at all. Scott McLachlan wrote a lot about pseudomonas and other similar organisms a year ago in Parts 2 & 3 of his substack series on this case. But it was only yesterday did he publish that he had already seen the report from the CoC hospital which highlighted in this and yesterday’s Telegraph article right back in June 2023 while the original court case was still in progress. It is worrying that we have got to the point where someone with information like that feels unable to take it to the police or the defence team because of potential risk to their job.