The case of Lucy Letby, the nurse convicted of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder seven others, is facing renewed scrutiny following the emergence of new evidence that suggests she may have been scapegoated. Doubts about the safety of her convictions are growing, particularly after internal hospital documents revealed concerns about the alleged bullying behaviour of two senior doctors towards Letby. This behaviour reportedly escalated after she raised legitimate concerns about apparent failures in care within the hospital’s neonatal unit, which subsequently led to her being removed from her duties by these very doctors.
The situation took a significant turn when Letby initiated a formal grievance procedure against the doctors in question, Dr. Stephen Brearey and Dr. Ravi Jayaram. The hospital’s internal investigation found in Letby’s favour regarding her grievance. However, by this stage, the doctors had already contacted Cheshire Police to report their own concerns about Letby, setting in motion the chain of events that led to her arrest and subsequent trial.
Letby was found guilty of the murders of seven babies and the attempted murders of seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital, with the alleged incidents occurring between 2015 and 2016. However, a draft of the investigation into Letby’s grievance, dated November 12, 2016, and marked “strictly private and confidential,” has come to light. This document, which has been placed on the website of the Thirlwall Inquiry – the independent review examining the circumstances surrounding the babies’ deaths – concludes that:
- “it is the view of nursing and executive interviewees that the drive to blame LL for the rise in mortality came from SB and RJ…”
- The report expresses concern that these accusations were based on “gut feel,” questioning whether this warranted further investigation under the Trust’s Bullying and Harassment policy.
The document further elaborates on the context surrounding Letby’s presence on duty during adverse events. It states: “Given the positive views of LL’s competence, capability and flexibility regarding when she is needed, LL is likely to be in a position where she may be looking after the sickest babies on the unit and coupled to the fact that she works full-time and will work extra shifts when asked, increases the likelihood that she might be on duty when adverse events occur.” This suggests that her dedication and willingness to work extra hours, often caring for the most critically ill infants, might have inadvertently placed her at the centre of tragic incidents.
Following these findings, hospital management convened a meeting on May 12, 2017, to discuss how to address the conduct of the doctors. A handwritten note from this meeting, also published on the Thirlwall Inquiry website, details the conclusions reached by Sue Hodkinson, the director of human resources, and Tony Chambers, the Countess of Chester’s chief executive.
Actions and Allegations
Under the heading “RJ/SB – plan re management,” the note clearly outlines an “Action plan to manage out” the doctors from the hospital. Further headings, including references to the “GMC” (General Medical Council), indicate that hospital managers were exploring various avenues to prevent the consultants from continuing to target Letby.
However, this internal hospital process was overtaken by events. By the time these management discussions were underway, the doctors had already alerted Cheshire Police. This shifted the focus of the investigation entirely onto Letby, with her supposed role in the babies’ deaths becoming the central concern. Critically, the juries who heard Letby’s trials were reportedly unaware of this broader context, including the hospital’s internal findings about the doctors’ behaviour and Letby’s grievance.
Doubts Over Convictions
Over the past two years, significant concerns have been raised regarding the basis of Letby’s convictions. Reports have highlighted that she was found guilty on the strength of statistical probabilities and increasingly questioned theories about how she might have harmed the children. The verdicts were reached despite a notable absence of direct forensic or CCTV evidence, and without a clear, convincing motive being established. Furthermore, independent medical reviews have indicated that the neonatal unit itself was understaffed and operating beyond its capacity, suggesting systemic issues rather than solely individual culpability.
Mark McDonald, the legal representative for Lucy Letby, has spoken out about the implications of this newly revealed evidence. He stated: “This material puts a completely different perspective on why Lucy was accused of such awful crimes. Was she a whistleblower? Was she a scapegoat? These are questions which one day, when Lucy is exonerated, the Countess will need to tackle, but what we do know is that hospital was in crisis and the neonatal unit was not fit for purpose and should never have been dealing with desperately sick children.”
It is worth noting that Dr. Ravi Jayaram was reportedly the only medical witness during Letby’s two trials who attempted to directly link her behaviour to the babies’ deaths.
Earlier this year, Conservative MP Sir David Davis, a vocal campaigner for a review of Letby’s convictions, raised pertinent questions in the House of Commons. He asked: “Why did Cheshire police decide Letby was responsible? Initially, there was no intention to launch any criminal investigation, but on May 15, 2017 that all changed. After a single meeting with two consultants, Dr. Stephen Brearey and Dr. Ravi Jayaram, from the Countess of Chester, Letby was explicitly identified as the focus of suspicion.”
The Countess of Chester Hospital has not yet responded to requests for comment on these developments. The unfolding revelations continue to cast a shadow of doubt over the original investigation and trial, prompting calls for a thorough re-examination of the case.
Leave a Reply