Nineteen Nurses is made up of a group of passionate nurses who have set out on a mission to advocate for an Independent Review in the case of a neonatal nurse, Lucy Letby. In August 2023, Lucy Letby was convicted of murdering and attempting to murder babies under her care, in the neonatal unit and the Countess of Chester Hospital. Despite the seriousness of the convictions, Nineteen Nurses has grave concerns about the quality and reliability of the evidence used to convict. As a consequence of our concern, we have written a letter to the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, to raise awareness and gather support for reexamining the evidence that led to the conviction of Lucy Letby.
The case in question involves allegations against a nurse named Lucy Letby, who was accused of a heinous crime against her neonatal patients. However, within a few days, over 250 healthcare professionals signed the Nurse's Open Letter, which highlighted the flaws in the investigation and trial, which could have led to a wrongful conviction. Our Letter calls for a thorough review of the evidence used to convict Lucy Letby, to ensure that justice is served.
The conviction of Lucy Letby has drawn widespread concern from healthcare professionals regarding the credibility of the medical evidence used in her trial. A retired UK pathologist with over 30 years of experience, including more than 5,000 autopsies of unexplained deaths such as neonatal and cot deaths, stated plainly, “I do not find the medical evidence credible.” This expert's perspective reinforces broader calls for an independent review of the case, with others highlighting flawed medical opinions, omitted data, and systemic failings within the NHS.
A paramedic pointed out that NHS medics are frequently overworked, and stressed that without addressing these systemic issues, the case cannot be properly understood. "You cannot trial legally a theoretical first-world service when, in reality, it's a third-world service at times," they noted, underscoring the impact of poor hospital conditions and overburdened staff.
Multiple healthcare professionals, from paediatric nurses to radiographers and pathologists, have questioned the fairness of the trial. A radiographer called for a deeper investigation into the excluded Datix reports and concerns Lucy Letby had raised, arguing that these omissions contributed to an unfair portrayal of her role.
A retired GP stressed that the prosecution's medical evidence was based on anecdotal, hypothetical, and unscientific assumptions, contrary to the findings of highly qualified paediatric pathologists. "I do not understand why Dr. Evans' opinion was felt to be more accurate than those extremely well-qualified pathologists," the GP said, questioning the impartiality of the testimony used in the case.
The overarching message is clear: the conviction is seen as potentially unsafe, and a transparent, independent review is not just warranted but necessary to restore public trust in the justice system and to ensure that all relevant evidence is fully examined. These voices, coming from experienced healthcare professionals across multiple disciplines, underscore the urgent need for further scrutiny and accountability in this complex and contentious case.
Comments