Nurse's Open Letter
Members of the public, nurses, medical professional, or healthcare professional join us in making a stand to ensure that scientific evidence used to convict Lucy Letby Case, is subject to an independent review. As individuals, our voices may be small, but together we have the power to create change. Sign our open letter, by completing the form below, to urge Prime Minister Keir Starmer to initiate a full independent review of the evidence used in the trials of Lucy Letby.

Dear Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer,

As a collective of registered and retired nurses, medical professionals, and healthcare professionals, we write this open letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer to communicate our growing concerns regarding the evidence presented and used to convict Ms Lucy Letby. Over the last months and weeks our concerns surrounding the trials of Ms Letby have been echoed by medical experts, eminent statisticians, scientists, respected investigative journalists, other health care professionals and the public.

Many of us have carefully studied the evidence presented in court with some of us attending the court hearings in person. But all of us are worried that this conviction is unsafe and as a result we and many of our colleagues are now terrified to continue working in the NHS as we believe that next time it could be one of us who is blamed for a failing system. We believe that flawed and unreliable scientific evidence was used to convict Ms Letby, and this is having a huge impact on the nursing profession. As reported recently in The Telegraph, nurses have been warned by trusts not to speak out about the case or they may lose their jobs. This fear, as well as the potential for being demonized, trolled and being labelled conspiracy theorists, means that our voices are not being heard. 

We are all unified in offering our condolences to the families who have suffered tremendous loss or harm to their babies in this case. We want truth for all families involved and we believe that there are some families who have concerns about suboptimal care in the Maternity/Neonatal Unit, not just at the Countess of Chester, but in units across the U.K.

​Today, like every day, we take our Duty of Candor seriously and have taken this more protected route to speak out and urge the Government to order a Royal Commission/Independent review of the medical evidence used to convict Ms Letby. 

Our key areas of concern:

1. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Report (2016) carried out by the Trust after the spike in deaths was never explored or shown to the jury. It clearly outlined higher activity with higher risk babies, staffing shortages, insufficient consultant presence and ward rounds, and a reluctance by medical staff to seek senior support.
2. The staffing chart presented to the jury was misleading and offered a very selective picture of presence on shift for deaths and collapses, with six or more deaths in the indictment period which were left off the chart, and which have been revealed through a Freedom of Information Request. When the prosecution's K.C. repeatedly told the jury that there were seven deaths and Lucy Letby was ‘there’ for all of them, this was extremely misleading.
3. Clear evidence of suboptimal/substandard care on the unit needs to be acknowledged and investigated as many believe that it may have been an important factor in several of the deaths and collapses.
4. Protocols for blood sampling for the insulin cases were clearly not followed, rendering the tests invalid. Other medical explanations were never properly explored. The laboratory itself states any test for exogenous insulin requires the blood to undergo a second test at a more specialist laboratory in Guildford. This was never done. No forensic testing was ever carried out and therefore unreliable results, which should never have been admissible, were shown to the jury.
5. During the trial experts repeatedly misrepresented the health state of the babies, repeatedly describing them as ‘well’ and ‘stable’ when many of them were extremely premature and vulnerable. Most of the babies required respiratory support and ventilation and other medical interventions, some were being treated for infections. The risk of their conditions was minimised by the Chester consultants, the expert witnesses for the prosecution and the prosecution counsel.
6. Eminent neonatologist Dr Shoo Lee gave very clear and impressive evidence in the Appeal Hearing in May 2024, in which he clearly rebutted the air emboli hypothesis that had been presented by the prosecution's expert witnesses. The Appeal Court judges refused to accept this evidence claiming that it should have been used in the main trial. The truth is the truth and will always remain the truth. What has been heard cannot be unheard. High scientific standards were not met by the prosecution witnesses, and their evidence was not built on credible scientific facts.
7. In the retrial in June 2024, it became clear that the swipe entry data, which built a timeline of opportunity, was in fact incorrect. The jury in the first trial was unaware of this information when deliberating the verdicts. Also, medical notes had been incorrectly placed in the wrong date order, which also became clear in the retrial.
8. There was no direct evidence to link Ms Letby to causing any physical harm, the case was built on a weak foundation of circumstantial and ambiguous evidence.
9. Expert witnesses in this case gave unscientific testimonies, offering what we know as nurses to be extremely implausible. Other causes of death/collapse were not properly explored by the police or the prosecution who set out to prove that Lucy Letby must have caused the harm and deaths. No methodology or detail was given at any stage as to how they reached their conclusions or why other potential causes such as substandard care, hygiene issues and natural course of illness had been ruled out.

 Since reporting restrictions have been lifted, multiple media outlets have published detailed articles presenting serious concerns with the reliability of the evidence used to convict Ms Letby. 

With respect, we request a scientifically rigorous Royal Commission/Independent review where real experts, such as forensic pathologists, medical specialists, and scientists, can conduct a detailed and meticulous forensic assessment to re-examine the evidence in this troubling case. We believe this is crucial for nurses and healthcare practitioners alike, so that we can feel confident and safe in our work.

We also encourage the formation of a specialized cross-party task force, dedicated to investigating the procedural irregularities that have been exposed by the media.

We are unified as a country in our belief in a fair and open justice system. The trial of Ms Letby has undermined our collective faith, and we urge you to act now to restore the public confidence in the justice system. For now, many nurses and healthcare professionals do not have that confidence. 

Yours sincerely,

Nineteen Nurses

 

​