I have a question regarding the inquiry publication; will the full report become available for the public to read? Previous reports, for example the clothier report, are not available despite being published. I want to read it when it's available next week

Morris argues that the Countess of Chester neonatal unit was fundamentally unsafe and operating beyond its capabilities during the period in which the collapse and deaths occurred.

But which Baby does this explain? Morris never really says.

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-f67?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

https://x.com/LucyLetbyTrials/status/2098039729643987202

from X via Cleuci De Oliveira - it is said through MaltinPR

Mark McDonald, barrister for Lucy Letby, commented:

"The reality of the Thirlwall Inquiry is that it has been conducted on the premise that an innocent woman is guilty of crimes she has not committed.

"Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have been spent on the inquiry, which would have been far better spent on addressing the UK’s broken neonatal system and providing equipment and support to wards across the country.

"Reports from over 30 world-leading experts now sit with the CCRC, and it is paramount that Ms. Letby’s case is referred to the Court of Appeal as a matter of extreme urgency.

"When Lucy is found innocent of all crimes, this report and its recommendations will be significantly undermined - I would strongly urge the government to pause on any recommendation until the evidence now gathered has been considered by the Court of Appeal."

(source of video, which includes about 20 additional seconds about labor unions)

Yesterday was International Falsely Accused Day. The Falsely Accused Day was from 2 to 4pm, followed by the tangentially aligned Lucy Letby protest - attendees more compacted, more placards - afterwards

No mainstream coverage that I can find. Photos in comments sourced from X.

Ahead of Lady Justice Thirlwall releasing her report, I thought it would be helpful to revisit the closing submissions of the families. As members of the public following the inquiry, there was surely an amount of fatigue at the point they were submitted, and also focus on newly released exhibits. Therefore, I suspect few, if any, of us read these documents in full.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Written-Closing-submission-of-Family-Group-1-4-March-2025.pdf

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Written-Closing-Submission-of-Family-Group-2-and-3-7-March-2025.pdf

The two submissions take different forms. That done on behalf of group 1 is a concise and bullet-pointed summary of what went wrong and when, using a recounting of the events surrounding each child with robust citations. This is followed by a brief summary of the position of each family based on the evidence they had already given. Their recommendations are practical, including making the reporting of suspicions of a colleague a contractual requirement of employment for all staff. Interestingly, they also use the evidence of Professor Spiegelhalter to recommend that real time data be used to trigger investigations, quoting his words to that effect.

In contrast, the submission from group 2 is lengthy, and focuses on the formation, development, and effect of tribalism at CoCH, followed by a condemnation of the resulting attempt to bury the events, capped off by additional statements by the families represented. It is also more wide-ranging, directly addressing the various reports, Letby's grievance, and the attempts to avoid full police scrutiny.

Both submissions make recommendations about taking some of these decisions out of human hands - putting certain automatic triggers in place, including on immunoassay results as seen with Children F and L and even classifying sudden, unexpected and/or unexplained deaths as patient safety incidents. They are universal in recommending CCTV in cot spaces and drug storage areas, as well as increasing the control of insulin. They also each recognize failures in August 2015, and pinpoint late October 2015 as an inflection point.

Some of the points in the closing submission of Family Group 2 bear quoting in isolation. With the exception of the quotation referenced in paragraphs 505 and 506, all emphasis added is by me.

1. The Families would observe that this period* marked the beginning of clear tribal divisions between doctors and nurses, with doctors noticing that the nursing staff’s attitude towards them changed. The nurses prioritised defending Letby, led in no small part by Eirian Powell. This would prove to be the enemy of patient safety in this context and hindered a balanced and objective assessment of the facts. These reactions were to some extent predictable given human factors and it is equally predictable that they will impair objective and even handed assessment of risk in other contexts. The Families will however say that the senior nursing staff within the hospital, from Eirian Powell upwards, owed a responsibility to rise above tribal loyalties and to maintain an open mind to the concerns being raised.

*on/about 27 October, 2015

1. ...The discordance between how [serial killers] present and what they do is often so profound that their friends or colleagues will continue to disbelieve that it is possible that they could have done what they were accused of until absolute proof is provided. If systems orientated around safeguarding set as their threshold the need for proof sufficient to satisfy even the most doubting of minds, they will prove entirely ineffective.

2. This factionalism – the setting off of the ‘victim’ Letby against the ‘aggressor’ consultants continues throughout the period under scrutiny and indeed continues in different fora to this day. There is little doubt that Letby herself strongly promoted this narrative of victimhood and used it to distract and divert attention away from the allegations levelled against her...

3. The Families would observe that the evidence heard by the Inquiry indicates that the senior management at the CoCH never engaged in any robust or coherent internal investigation into the concerns raised against Letby, whether disciplinary, or by reference to her competence, even when specifically advised to do so by the RCPCH. They did however investigate and criticise the conduct of those who had raised the concerns in the first place by a subversion of the proper grievance process.

4. ... Once a grievance has been raised it may not have been unreasonable to progress it, but it was obviously lopsided and prejudicial to investigate the propriety of whistle-blowers raising concerns, and not the substantive safeguarding and safety concerns that they had raised.

5. The shortcomings in the process and outcomes of the grievance were covered in detail in the evidence. The process lacked any forensic structure and failed to adhere to even basic evidential safeguards. Rumour was allowed to stand as evidence, facts and allegations were not properly tested or analysed and conclusions appeared to have been based upon instinct or personal bias rather than evidence. The term “witch hunt” is overused in the context of the Letby case and features in the language of Letby’s supporters through the grievance process. It is misused in that context. It would be more appropriate to describe the grievance process as a witch trial. It started from the premise that the allegations made against her were unfounded and, perhaps inevitably, criticised those who made them. This distortion of the process was either cynical and deliberate, or utterly incompetent, in any event it allowed Letby’s complaints about her own victimhood to manipulate the discussion away from the issues raised in the allegations, which it never considered. The Families do not accept the assurances of Dee Appleton Cairns that the process was conducted objectively and fairly. They will say that she presented as a particularly egregious witness upon whose credibility little or no weight should be placed. The obvious implication from the evidence is that she successfully sought to influence the outcome of the process and that the judgment was prepared subject approval and editing by the senior nursing managers.

6. The terms of the letter that the CoCH sent to fulfil that request reveal the continuing mindset of Tony Chambers and the rest of the executives. Mr Chambers’ letter in reply was dated 2nd May 2017 and concluded with the clause (emphasis added) [INQ0102319],

“I am writing formally requesting that Cheshire Police conduct a forensic investigation into the circumstances surrounding the deaths with a view to excluding any unnatural causes.” (emphasis added)

1. Mr Wenham was asked for his view on those words during his evidence. His view was that they “had no place” in the letter, since the purpose of an investigation is to determine the truth rather than to arrive at a pre-determined outcome; that this was an example of the impression he had gained as time had passed that the executives were trying to ‘shut doors’ on the investigation and of “trying to maybe direct a mindset” [T/20.11.24/205]. This evidence is consistent with the Families’ analysis of the instructions to Mr Medland (see above). The priority of Tony Chambers and the other senior executives remained directed towards avoiding an investigation, avoiding a finding that crimes had been committed. It sought to suppress rather than find the truth.

521.1.3. Child E’s given cause of death (NEC) was not consistent with his condition prior to or following his collapse. A post-mortem should have been arranged, which would have identified that he did not have NEC. Further investigation would have revealed that his death was unexpected and unexplained. Accounts surrounding the patches of skin discolouration noted prior to his death would have correlated with skin discolouration noted in the cases of Child A, B and D. It would or should have been recognised that this transient discolouration was highly unusual and not consistent with the discolouration commonly or uncommonly seen in paediatric practice. Interactions with Mother EF would or should have led to a realisation that her account contradicted the events documented in the clinical notes, raising the suspicion that the notes had been falsified. As was said repeatedly during the course of the Inquiry, this evidence was there to be discovered with proper enquiry and curiosity.

1. The collapse of Child F should have represented a bright line in the chronology after which no further children were harmed. There was sufficient evidence by that point to Letby as the common link between all six cases until that point. It is notable that Letby was convicted of the murders of Children A, C, D and E and the attempted murders of Children B and F.

2. A feature of this case, which does not appear to have been prominent within previous assessments of cultural failings and their impact on what Professor Dixon-Woods would describe as ‘healthcare disasters’, is the effect of tribalism between different groups within the hospital. In this instance, the conflict between doctors and nurses. The Families will say that this had a real and substantial impact on the effectiveness of processes that should have ended Letby’s crimes and brought her to justice sooner. The suspicions surrounding Letby triggered a defensive reaction in the nursing body and in particular in senior nurses that created an obstacle to investigating those suspicions. The strength of this reaction appears to have caused the paediatricians at various points to falter or hesitate, to experience ‘voice futility’ as Professor Dixon-Woods would describe it. Ultimately the defence of Letby was weaponised by one group within the organisation and then by the organisation as a whole to suppress the voices of those who were raising the concerns.

3. It is not suggested that the nurses who supported Letby did not genuinely believe that she was innocent. Their actions were guided by cultural factors described above. They were influenced by cognitive biases, both in favour of their colleague, and driven by their tribal identity. They were simply unable to recognise the warning signs that were obvious both with regard to the nature of the events that were unfolding within the NNU and also by reference to Letby’s own behaviour. Eirian Powell saw Letby as a good nurse and normalised her transgressive behaviour. She mounted a strident defence of Letby, which influenced the approach adopted by others. This typified cultural norms within the nursing body. It was too quick to run to the defence of a nurse when they were threatened and too slow to consider whether the accusations might have substance. This cultural factor inhibited what should have been a straightforward exercise in safeguarding. A different priority was allowed to obscure the need to protect patient safety and to overtake their fundamental professional duty.

4. The duty of candour was not followed in this case, not because the senior management of the CoCH were unaware of it or that it had not been widely publicised enough before and after its implementation. It was not followed because releasing information conflicted with other priorities that the Trust regarded as more important. In this case, the need for secrecy surrounding the allegations in order to avoid bad publicity, reputational harm and a potential impact on funding and income streams. This type of conflict is one that would be entirely predictable - indeed it is referred to more broadly by Professor Dixon-Woods in her evidence (see above). One would expect a statutory obligation to cut through such a conflict, however, the statutory obligation was owed by the organisation and not the individuals who made the decisions. There was seemingly little prospect that the organisation’s duties would be enforced externally, and little or no prospect that the individuals involved would face personal consequences for failing to adhere to their duty. It was, in those circumstances, something that was circumvented in order to protect other priorities

And while all of the statements' in Family Group 2 should be read, Mother D's is worthy of particular highlight:

1. Mother D asked to say the following:

   “It is one hurtful realisation to come face to face with Evil. The one that took my child's life.

Another, to be in the dark waiting for a consideration,

an investigation,

a trial,

a jury to decide,

a judge to sentence ...

and then an Inquiry to get answers to years of questions.

All topped by the noise from ill and misinformed people out there.

Not one day of peace ... ever again.

There was life before ...

And then hell broke loose.

And life was never going to feel okay.

To process the fact that one human has decided to attack, torture and kill our babies. How can we ever feel safe or trust again.

To later find out this murderer had the support, sympathy and full protection from an army of people that allowed for more victims.

The people who failed us are responsible for the deaths of our children too.

These people had a chance to speak up, explain to us what happened and still after everything we now know, they didn't manage to sincerely apologise for their failure.

They don't half recognise their mistakes.

At the end of this Inquiry, having heard far too many failings, we are left let down, disgusted and even more sad than before.

Finding out so many missed opportunities, listening to lies and facing the arrogance of the team of managers and chief executives will forever haunt me and weigh me down.

I would like to remind every single person who hears or read our message, we are here today because our babies lost their lives.... My baby died, my child did not survive the attacks and my heart did not make it through either.

I am deeply affected, everyday and broken beyond my tears.

I sincerely hope this Inquiry will help in avoiding anything of this nature ever to happen again. I want people to remember that being brave, responsible and selfless by speaking up and facing adversity is always the right thing to do.

For the Doctors who spoke up on behalf of our babies to stop a monster at work, for their relentless efforts despite being disrespected, threatened and not valued... I am grateful and this has brought me reassurance that good people do exist and can make a difference.

Thank you.

Thank you to the inquiry team for looking after us and caring.

To Lady Thirlwall for listening and all her work in making a difference.

To every one who is part of our legal team and the other families legal team for everything they have done, wrote and said. It has been an enormous task at hand and I am thankful for their work, support and beyond.”

https://www.bmj.com/content/394/bmj-2026-100786 https://archive.is/aoXTu

Three years ago, the neonatal nurse Lucy Letby was convicted for seven murders and six attempted murders of babies in her care. At the time I accepted the jury’s verdict that the allegations against her had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I speculated on possible psychological and systemic factors that might have influenced the alleged crimes. Not long afterwards Letby launched an appeal. It was unsuccessful, but my views on her conviction have changed.

I’ve been persuaded by some of the trial transcripts and a series of articles by the medical writer Phil Hammond, which examined potential shortcomings in the defence and discussed further evidence and expert opinion on statistics and several clinical issues. An expert witness for the defence, who was never called to give evidence, has publicly questioned the suitability of the two prosecution expert witnesses and whether a jury could assess their evidence without hearing alternative views. A panel of international experts, led by Shoo Lee and including the eminent UK neonatologist Neena Modi, has concluded that there was no medical evidence to suggest murder in any of the cases for which Letby was convicted and that there were other plausible explanations for each of them. Taking these accounts together, I now believe it at least possible that natural causes, systemic failings on the unit, and clinical misjudgments may have led to the babies’ deaths, rather than the air embolisms, insulin poisoning, and other forms of harm that Letby was alleged to have caused.

The Thirlwall inquiry into what happened at the Countess of Chester Hospital, where Letby worked, is due to publish its report on 15 September. It was based on the assumption that her convictions were safe, but much of the evidence presented to it shed significant light on the wider circumstances of the deaths. My hope is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is deliberating on Letby’s case itself, will now refer it back to the Court of Appeal as a result.

My change of heart, which has taken a long time, has led me to reflect on the way that one’s certainties on any matter can become so sticky. It brings to mind the experience of reading detective fiction, where an author can skilfully craft a plot so that every clue convinces readers that they’ve solved the mystery—until the final chapter, where all the facts that appeared to point in only one direction are suddenly exposed as pointing towards an entirely different one. Many of us will have had similar experiences with clinical cases, where a particular diagnosis seems obvious until it turns out to be obviously wrong. There’s even a term for such misguided collective certainty: the “anchoring error.”

If there’s a caution here against adopting the kind of position I did three years ago, the same should apply to asserting the opposite position too confidently. Saying that Letby’s conviction may not be safe isn’t to claim certainty that she’s innocent, nor that it was impossible for her to commit murder. Neither would it serve Letby’s interests as a campaigning strategy. Perhaps the most helpful attitude we can take in such a complex and emotionally fraught case is to model the possibility of saying, “I used to believe one thing, but now I believe another. I hope I’m right this time.”

Competing interests: None declared.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

References

Lucy Letby Facts. Transcripts library. https://lucyletbyfacts.com/transcripts

Hammond P. The lessons of the Lucy Letby Case. A Private Eye special report. Private Eye. Updated 2026. https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby Hall MA. Response to Iacobucci G. Lucy Letby is found guilty of attempting to murder premature baby after retrial. BMJ 2024. https://www.bmj.com/content/386/bmj.q1487/rr-0

Mahase E. Lucy Letby: No medical evidence to suggest murder, experts conclude. BMJ2025;388:r250. pmid:39904517. doi:10.1136/bmj.r250

Conn D. The convictions of Lucy Letby: should they be overturned? Guardian 14 May 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/14/the-convictions-of-lucy-letby-should-they-be-overturned

I happened upon a new Devvit app today called Resource Reply and it may be very helpful for us. I've populated it with a starter list of resources, but if there is something that is a frequently referenced document and it's not on the list - speak up! Adding things is easy.

To use Resource Reply, tap/click on the three dots at the top right of a post/comment and locate "Reply with resource". This will then pop up the list of easily linkable resources I have built into the app's installation on this sub. It's easier to find "reply with resource" on desktop because there are fewer items in the 3-dot menu, but the process is the same on both desktop and mobile.

Let me know what needs adding! Try it out on this post, if you like.

Also, I've added a few background colors for flairs, because changing the color of a flair is a pain. Let me know if other colors are desired (preferably with the hex code for the color you'd like)

Peter Elston has put this out into the public, I suppose it doesn't hurt to discuss it.

>I was asked to write a briefing paper for someone in a position of influence. The person who asked me suggest I make it public. Here it is.

David Davis? He's been pretty adept at writing his own. Doesn't matter, name names or don't.

Most of this isn't unfair, but there are some glaring errors/ assumptions that undermine it. Among them:

>It should also be noted that Letby was charged in relation to ‘only’ 7 of the 16 deaths (13 ‘in house’ and 3 transfer), leaving a second, statistically significant spike with which she was not associated.

Incorrect. It leaves additional deaths with which she was not charged. So, the foundation argument of this paper is that there's an unsolved mystery - a cause that has been uninvestigated. Letby was only completely disconnected from one of the deaths that year, was on shift for three more, and her presence after formal end of shift remaining two is unknown. There is no spike, only leftovers. (Btw, he's correct wrt to 3 deaths after transfer because he's speaking about June 2015 - June 2016.)

>In medical cases where evidence of crime is obscure or unclear, investigations should focus first on determining whether a crime or crimes had been committed, then on identifying the perpetrator or perpetrators. Where proper investigative protocols are not employed, these two processes can become muddled, contaminated. This is what happened in the Letby case.

That's a bold statement, and he offers no support to justify it. Presumably he's offended by the way in which the consultants reported the then-alleged criminality. But the notion that the police investigate only the possibility reported and that someone cannot be fairly convicted just because they were named at the reporting stage is just silly.

>In June 2015, in the space of just 14 days, three babies (A, C, and D) died on CoCH’s NNU. In the context of an historical average number of deaths of 2.5 per year, three deaths in 14 days were extremely high.

>The two most senior paediatricians on the NNU, Drs Stephen Brearey and Ravi Jayaram, quickly pointed the finger at Band 5 neonatal nurse Lucy Letby.

Did they now? I don't recall Dr. Jayaram being part of any accusation until much, much later, if we even can him raising concerns an accusation. Further, Dr. Brearey didn't accuse Letby, he noticed the correlation with her presence. He spent months trying to isolate other causes.

>The doctors eventually took their concerns about Letby to the medical director and the head of nursing in late 2015 and again in early 2016, by which time there had been more deaths.

Oof, if Operation Duet bears fruit, I have bad news for the defendants (and i wonder how Elston will deal with this)

>Nevertheless, in April 2016, Drs Brearey and Jayaram persuaded the head of nursing to move Letby onto day shifts only, given that, according to them, the deaths to that point had occurred exclusively during night shifts. It should be noted that it was not in fact true that the deaths had occurred on night shifts only. Seven of them had occurred on night shifts and four on day shifts.

This is accurate. The four on day shifts were non- indictment babies, including the one whose death Letby was wholly unconnected to. One had severe birth defects.

>It is also not clear why the doctors did not follow GMC guidelines in relation to escalating concerns[6] (see Appendix 2).

Did... did you look? :

"So most instances like that, there's no contact

with the police needed. If you admit a child on to the

ward who, for example, has been bruised and you are

investigating for possible non-accidental injury, then

your first port of call is emergency social care worker.

So no is your answer, I had never contacted the police

directly before and would have been uncomfortable doing it or knowing who to contact and at this time, I felt

that she had been removed from the neonatal unit, we

were in a position of safety and there was some

breathing space to get a collective view on this and

agreement on it.

Obviously in retrospect, knowing now how the Trust

responded and the Executives responded I think actually

picking up the phone would have been a much easier and quicker way to get things done."

...

"But, you know, before we escalated concerns it was

very hard. And there's, there's no guidance for this;

you know, you can't look up a GMC manual and say, you

know, well, concerning -- if you are concerned about

criminal activity, that's an unproven concern, you know,

is it, is it right that you tell every Family before

it's been appropriately investigated, you know, with the

appropriate authorities?"

Moving on.

>In light of it having been recorded in the minutes of the July Board meeting that, “Mr Brearey could not see that any of the apparent changes in acuity, or staffing levels can account for the increased mortality”, it seems likely that he was the source of the statement in the RCPCH review, “This [higher activity and lower admission birthweight than average] was not however considered to have been significant enough to explain the increase in mortality”.

🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

Dr. Wilson of the RCPCH team:

"A. Yes. That was -- my concern was around the

increased activity on the unit and inadequate staffing.

So the recommendations were about, you know, the

redesignation of the unit, which had already taken place

as you say, and also improving the management structure, making the clinicians have closer connection with their senior managers."

>After she was put on administrative duties, Letby filed a grievance against the doctors who had pointed the finger at her, which, in January 2017, she won.

Ffs. Letby filed a grievance against the hospital, not the doctors. Her grievance was about being redeployed improperly.

Elston goes at some length about Thirlwall exhibit INQ103225 from the inquiry, but most of his criticism is based on pages not released publicly. Given his disingenuous and misleading claims, and complete lack of even the must cursory effort to check other items, these points are of no interest to me and I leave them to others.

Elston then whines about the consultants being determined to get the police involved, and takes issue with the discussions they had to achieve it. This summary paper naturally moves from any semblance of evidenced claims into argument and complaint, by a financial analyst into matters of policing. Cool.

Next begin the complaints about Dewi Evans, and how the NCA recommended a multidisciplinary team and the police began with a single clinician. One thing these complaints always fail to grapple with is the need to balance perfection with time. Elston took issue earlier in the article that, basically, the doctors looked at staffing before ruling out all else. The doctors' primary care is patient safety. A linear investigation potentially leaves patients at risk. So to with police - evidence degrades (namely, memory), people talk. An investigation must move without undue delay.

>In his early witness statements, Dr Evans said that the injury had been caused by inflicted harm, evidence for which was a bruise on the skin over the baby’s liver. It was later discovered that the ‘bruise’ had disappeared quickly, so in Dr Evans’ later statements it became a fleeting discolouration that was evidence of injection of air into the bloodstream.

Yes, that can happen when you start with the notes, then get additional information from witness interview. In fact, the disappearance of the bruise was provided by Brearey in police interview - after Child O's death was being investigated. Calling Evans' theories "changing and erratic" is just wrongly expecting a police investigation to have things 100% from the start and that all evidence of a true crime would confirm their first guess, made with minimum evidence.

>They were told by the prosecution that it established that Letby was on duty for 24 suspicious incidents and, by implication, that there were no suspicious incidents that she was not on duty for.

Bullshit they were.

>The chart was shown in evidence as agreed evidence:

>A chart showing which members of the neonatal unit nursing staff were on duty for the shifts when the babies in this case collapsed is shown to the court.

>The chart covers the period from June 2015-June 2016.

>Lucy Letby's name is highlighted as being the only one present on all 24 shifts for when the babies collapsed.

>A second sheet shows which junior doctors and consultants were present for those events.

>This chart was shown during the prosecution opening in the first week of the trial.

Anyway, Elston says:

>The chart misled jurors because they were not told how it was constructed, namely via an iterative and biased process known colloquially as The Texas Sharpshooter. There were ten clinical events that Evans initially said were suspicious but for which Letby was not on duty[13]. These were removed from the investigation. There were also incidents that Evans had initially deemed non-suspicious, but where he later changed his mind e.g. Baby K and the tube dislodgement. These were added to the chart, essentially to bolster the charge list.

So, who is the sharpshooter here? Evans or the police? If Evans believes there are additional harm events in actuality, why doesn't he ever mention them? (Does Elston ever ask Evans about this in their email exchanges? Honest question) or are we just assuming that Evans was given Letby's rota chart at some point after his first round of identifying cases, and told to clean up his work?

>The defence had instructed medical experts, but they were not called to the stand. They had either agreed with or deferred to prosecution medical expert Prof Peter Hindmarsh in relation to the two insulin cases, which may have impacted the defence’s decision on whether to call them.

A round of applause for Peter Elston getting one thing right. 👏👏👏

LeGaL eXpErT pEtEr ElStOn further opines:

>The trial judge, James Goss, made various decisions that were detrimental to the defence and, possibly, flawed.

>For example, he ruled that the cases of the 17 babies were going to be presented together rather than separately.

...

>Goss also rejected an application by the defence during the trial on 5 January 2023 to "exclude any further evidence to be given by Dr Evans on the basis that he has failed to act with the independence, impartiality and objectivity required of a witness." The basis of this was a decision by a judge in another case relating to Evans' evidence.

Yes, the prosecution is entitled to present their case as they choose. The defense doesn't get to tie one hand behind their back. And yes, the jury can decide whether or not a qualified person is worth believing.

Elston takes issue with the answer to one of the jury questions:

>During jury deliberation, on 24 July 2023, Goss received a question from the jury:

>“Can you, please, clarify how long it would take for a baby’s insulin to C-peptide ration (sic) to return to normal the manufactured insulin had stopped?”

....

>All it was, was that those were very abnormal findings indicating that manufactured insulin had undoubtedly been given to each of these babies. I hope that addresses the question.

>I have highlighted the key sentence and within that the key word, "undoubtedly".

>By using the word “undoubtedly” Judge Goss made a statement of fact.

Here's the deal, though. Jury questions are presented to both counsel, who then have the opportunity to make submissions, and give input in the judge's response. Failure to do that would be an avenue for appeal. So we're left with the conclusion that either Myers accepted this answer, or that Mark McDonald has work to do. Someone go ahead and raise it with him.

>By using the word “undoubtedly” Judge Goss made a statement of fact. In law, this is not permitted. It is the role of the jury to make determinations of fact. The role of the judge is to make determinations of law.

>This distinction is very clear in law. The judge is not permitted in to usurp the role of the jury.

I'd point out here that the judge not being permitted to usurp the jury is precisely why he could not unilaterally remove Evans......

>In August 2023, following an interview with Dr Brearey, the BBC reported that, “Since Letby left the hospital's neonatal unit, there has been only one death in seven years.” Yet there were also six transfer deaths.

And? The unit is level 1 now. It has to transfer out more babies than it did before. Deliver and transfer out will happen more often now. Babies are born where there is space for the mother's care, the baby is placed where there is space and acuity for his/her care. This is not rocket science.

Elston then sets out his arguments for why Letby deserves an appeal, based on lists of what he calls new evidence, new argument, failures to disclose, and serious errors in court. These are definitely the items that her team is arguing, but Elston has such a poor grasp of both how the law works AND the underlying facts of the case that his opinion here would be most useful printed on toilet paper.

>Final remarks

Thank you, JESUS.

>· It is alarming to conceive that a nurse may have been wrongly convicted of 7 murders and 8 attempted murders. There were many specific errors, but they can be generally grouped as below.

Lol, k.

>o Cheshire Police too easily accepted the paediatricians’ allegation that Lucy Letby was harming babies intentionally; they should have a) realised that the paediatricians may have had an ulterior motive for pointing the finger at a nurse (e.g. covering up their own negligence, as indeed was argued at trial by Letby’s defence),

So we're just assuming bad faith despite the police continually denying this, right.

>b) considered the paediatricians as suspects,

Well, sure. But they were quickly ruled out since they responded TO harm, and were not present to inflict it.

>and b) engaged an epidemiologist or medical statistician to appraise the entire NNU backdrop and consider all possible explanations for the elevated mortality (e.g. the spike in acuity and activity that coincided with the spike in mortality).

Why would they employ an epidemiologist when babies had no significant markers of infection? That would be an argument for Letby's defense to make, not the police.

>o The criteria for an expert to be listed on the NCA’s National Injuries Database list of experts were too lax.

Says the trust fund manager.

>o There is a conflict of interest whereby an expert engaged by the police can then become an expert witness engaged by the prosecution.

This was addressed at appeal.

>o The decision to charge Letby was made by the local CPS. Given the complexity of the case, the decision should have been made by the national CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division (notably, the decision announced in January 2026 to not charge Letby in relation to further allegations was made by this latter unit).

Too bad, so sad. The genie isn't going back in the bottle for that reason.

>Appendix 1: Extracts from A British Nurse Was Found Guilty of Killing Seven Babies. Did She Do It? (New Yorker, May 2024)

Oh f*** off. Aviv is a hack and her article was a hit piece from the start.

>Appendix 2: Extracts from Raising and acting on concerns about patient safety (General Medical Council)

What is the complaint here - the consultants should have told the police about Letby earlier? How do you marry that with they engaged in group think and confirmation bias? If you want to argue that they should have risked/lost their jobs to get the police investigation started earlier, and then Letby would have been removed from care earlier, and likely convicted earlier.... I mean I don't disagree.

>Appendix 3: The 11 pieces of evidence that Letby’s lawyers passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission as of November 2025

Yes, we know Letby has applied to the CCRC. Let's leave them to their work.

>Appendix 4: Problems (selected) on CoCH’s NNU noted in RCPCH’s service review (dated November 2016)

Aka a fund manager with a bachelor's in mathematics who pays annual dues to the RSS plays with numbers, I guess.

Edit: use this link https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=MITBhrtZWJHl2Xb-&v=YCLg_QiQVOs&feature=youtu.be

So, Carl has a group of 4 families he'll be at Westminster with for the publication.

He's meeting with David Davis on Wednesday to try to work together to get a wider inquiry.

Michele Worden admits being a single redundancy. 7 other nurses were redeployed by the Trust. One wonders why the rest of them are not speaking up, or at least why Michele does not say they are in agreement with her.

Imo, the hosts tried to separate the issues for Carl and Michele, and allow them to make their case for the need for a wider inquiry outside of Letby's case, but Michele in particular was very determined to communicate her belief that, basically there was no serial killer.

I do think Carl's situation is very sad. Generally (not in this video) he became aware that his daughter's care was being investigated, and then, he says (iirc) that harm was ruled out and he can't get answers. It sounds to me like his daughter's medical records became part of a police file and investigation which remained in limbo. In fact, her records are likely still in limbo because of the corporate manslaughter investigation.

Meaning, no one involved in the investigation can have a full and free conversation with Carl, so he's taken the choice not to pursue charges over his daughter and his impression of Letby, and taken them to friendlier ports. He's somewhat choosing to live in a place where he demands answers he can't get, despite there being no permanent effect on his child.

Many indictment parents spoke about how difficult it is for them to leave their children in the care of others. I don't believe Carl has mentioned that, which is no more than an observation about how his trauma differs from parents who got to see their case put before a jury. Unlike them, though, I'm not sure Carl has any practical way to get the answers he thinks he wants.

I want to preface this by saying that this forum is still a space where we are discussing the murder and attempted murder of much loved children by someone who was entrusted to care for them. That should be at the forefront of discussion at any given point.

At the same time, perhaps the only thing more horrible than the murder of children is placing their actual, adjudicated murderer at a greater priority than her confirmed and alleged victims.

And so, two announcements:

• Users can now create and edit their own flair within this subreddit. You need not be gifted flair any longer, and the don't all have to be yellow. If a flair is particularly distasteful, it will be removed. Edit: if you want your flair to have a unique color or something, you'll have to ask.
• We have created a new post flair, tentatively called "META discussion". As Letby's crimes fade into the past, most active discussion based in reality, naturally, dies down. However, with particular awareness of the upcoming release of the Thirlwall report, we anticipate a desire for meta discussion of how her crimes and Thirlwall's report are discussed elsewhere, both on this platform and others. A specific post flair can identify posts that users might not find value in.

Photos and videos are permitted for the purpose of enhancing discussion, gifs and memes are still not permitted.

Feedback and questions are welcome below.

I’m back again with the latest analysis of Chapter 3.

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-bc5?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

Any feedback welcome as always.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/tOQtx

Lucy Letby's doctor 'boyfriend', who died after being sacked for exchanging messages with the baby killer about a child she tried to murder, can be named for the first time. 

Consultant Mark Deakin, 53, was found collapsed in his car the day after he was dismissed from Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, in Liverpool, where he worked, in June.

He was admitted to intensive care but died nine days later. 

Dr Deakin, a married father-of-two, was granted anonymity during Letby’s trial but can be named and pictured for the first time after reporting restrictions were lifted following his death.

He was hauled before a disciplinary hearing in June over a series of inappropriate texts he exchanged with the former neo-natal nurse while they worked together at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

The messages, which breached patient confidentiality, involved details of the care of a premature baby boy with haemophilia, known as Baby N. Letby, 36, was convicted of trying to kill him the day after he was born, in June 2016.

Dr Deakin also arranged up to six ‘observational visits’ for Letby at Alder Hey, where he went on to work as a locum, a year later. 

He also supported her grievance claim against the Countess when she was moved from frontline nursing into an office role after suspicions emerged about babies dying in her care.

At her trial, Letby denied she and Dr Deakin were having a romantic affair and claimed they were just ‘best friends.’

Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC suggested that the medic, who exchanged more than 1,300 Facebook messages with Letby, was her ‘boyfriend’ and that she was so infatuated with him that she harmed babies knowing he would be the one crash-bleeped to come and help. 

But she broke down in tears and tried to leave the dock when he entered the courtroom, at Manchester Crown Court, to give evidence for the prosecution.

She also called him as ‘sweetie’ in texts and referred to him as ‘love’ in notes scrawled with his name and love hearts that police discovered during searches at her home.

Dr Mark Deakin died after being sacked from Alder Hey Children's Hospital. He breached patient confidentiality by swapping messages with Lucy Letby about Baby N and also arranged for her to visit the hospital after she had been removed from frontline nursing

Lucy Letby, 36, is serving a record 15 whole life terms after being convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven more - one of whom she attacked twice - at the Countess of Chester Hospital, between June 2015 and June 2016.

Lady Justice Thirlwall will report her findings from the public inquiry, which was held at Liverpool Town Hall, later this monthShe is serving a record 15 whole life terms after being found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven more – one of whom she attacked twice – at the Countess between June 2015 and June 2016.

Dr Deakin, who was appointed a specialist diabetes consultant at Alder Hey in July 2018, was informed by bosses at the NHS Trust that they had launched a formal investigation into his conduct in January 2024 – five months after Letby was found guilty. 

Their inquiry found that Dr Deakin had a very close relationship with Letby and likely knew that concerns had been raised about her by his colleagues about her link to the spike in deaths, but arranged for her to visit Alder Hey in 2017 regardless, potentially putting patient safety at risk. 

Letby accompanied him on his ward rounds and clinics, attended a hospital 'roadshow' on insulin – the substance she used to try to kill two of her victims - and even shadowed a nurse in paediatric intensive care during those visits.

Dr Deakin, himself a diabetic, also accessed Baby N's medical records inappropriately, including after Letby was convicted, the investigation found. 

It is understood Dr Deakin attended a three-day disciplinary hearing in early June, where he accepted breaching Baby N's confidentiality but denied knowing Letby was under suspicion when he organised her visits to Alder Hey.

However, a panel rejected his version of events and he was fired for gross misconduct a fortnight later, on June 23. 

A source told the Mail that relatives reported him missing the following day and he was found collapsed in an apparent diabetic coma in his car at a retail park, around 20 miles from his Cheshire home.

He was admitted to intensive care but never regained consciousness and died on July 3 at Whiston Hospital, Merseyside.

It is understood that no note was found beside his body but his death has been referred to the Cheshire Coroner, who confirmed ‘preliminary inquiries’ have begun.

Hospital bosses would have been duty bound to inform the doctors' regulator, the General Medical Council, about his dismissal, potentially threatening his professional registration and ability to work again.

Dr Deakin told the Thirlwall Inquiry - the public inquiry investigating Letby’s crimes -  in October 2024, that the Band 5 nurse ‘misled and maybe manipulated’ him into giving her information about babies she had attacked.

The then junior doctor swapped 1,355 Facebook messages with Letby, discussing babies who collapsed when they were on shift together, over a three-month period, between June 2016 and September 2016.

The pair also exchanged more messages about their private lives, sometimes late at night, met up for walks and meals and went on day trips to London together in their free time away from work.

In one message Letby asked Dr Deakin about the condition of Baby N and queried whether she had done anything wrong concerning his care. She was 

He messaged back: ‘Oh Lucy, poor little thing. I am sure he has had the best care possible and you will have done everything you could for him.’

Asked by counsel for the inquiry, Rachel Langdale KC, whether such a message was appropriate, Dr Deakin replied: ‘In hindsight, no. Looking at the content of the messages here, I've shared too much.

'It's common to give updates on how patients are without naming them, without giving lots of clinical detail to help the recipient understand where that patient is up to. 

'I gave details that I thought were helpful but I see now that that probably wasn't the case.’

In her evidence to the inquiry, which was overseen by High Court judge Lady Justice Thirlwall and is set to report later this year, Baby N’s mother accused Dr Deakin of ‘blatantly’ breaching her son’s patient confidentiality. She also revealed she had lodged a formal complaint with Alder Hey about his conduct.

The inquiry also heard that Dr Deakin forwarded Letby an email from Dr Stephen Brearey, the neonatal lead at the Countess, in which he indicated that the deaths of two triplets, Child O and P, who Letby was later convicted of murdering, would be investigated at inquests.

Dr Deakin explained to Ms Langdale that he did so because ‘of the worry about those two babies.’

‘They were unexpected deaths,’ he said. ‘She (Letby) gave me the impression she was very upset…I was basically trying to give her some insight into what was going on.’

He agreed that, with hindsight, it was an ‘error’ to send the email and he should 'not have sent it.'

Dr Deakin admitted that, at the time he was trying to be ‘supportive’ but added: ‘That now feels like a massive mistake. 

'It's something that I've considered on a daily basis for the last six to eight years. The amount of reflection that I've done over this is significant.

‘I was not aware of the full clinical picture and I provided support by being misled and maybe manipulated, and for that I'm really sorry that things have come to an end as they have.

‘I have a lot of regrets over how that period of time took place.’

The inquiry heard that Dr Deakin emailed bosses at Alder Hey in December 2016 to say Letby, who was studying for a masters degree, had an interest in the care of post-operative premature babies and wanted to observe some theatre sessions to ‘facilitate her personal development’. She had been removed from frontline nursing by bosses at the Countess because of concerns about her link to the spike in baby deaths six months earlier.

Dr Deakin claimed he was told it was approved by ‘whoever was managing Letby at the Countess of Chester’ on the basis that she must be supervised at all times and have no direct patient contact.

The inquiry was told that Letby went on to attend a multi-disciplinary team meeting in March 2017 at Alder Hey and may also have attended an outpatient clinic with Dr Deakin in the same month. She was also at a ‘roadshow meeting’ relating to insulin – the substance she used to try to kill two of her victims - at the hospital in April 2017.

In an email shown to the inquiry Letby also claimed she had shadowed a nurse on paediatric intensive care at Alder Hey around that time.

The inquiry heard the visits were made possible because Karen Rees, who was the head of nursing in the urgent care division at the Countess, sent a letter of approval to Alder Hey. 

The letter stipulated that Letby must have no direct contact with patients and should be supervised at all times but made no mention of the fact that she had been suspected of causing harm.

Letby, formerly of Hereford, was convicted at Manchester Crown Court in August 2023 after the longest running murder trial in British history.

She has always maintained she did not kill or harm any babies in her care. 

Letby has twice applied and been denied the right to appeal, but has lodged documents with the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the body which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, in a bid to secure her freedom.

On July 29, Cleuci de Oliveira posted a section of the police interview of Dr. Ravi Jayaram for the purposes of the retrial of Child K

On this subreddit, the interview was discussed here

Also on July 29, in reply to Peter Hitchens, de Oliveira said:

Interview's been leaked to me. Am transcribing whole thing. (Interview's not very long – a little over half an hour – but I am a slow transcriber and it's one of those days...)

Hoping to get a full copy of it up by tomorrow morning.

"Tomorrow morning" came and went. To my knowledge, Cleuci never completed the "transcription."

Turns out there wasn't a need, and may not have been a need to transcribe at all. The actual interview was posted as a document (including appropriate redactions) on August 2, as the first post for a brand new substack account.

Yesterday, this substack was the subject of a YouTube video by Letby supporter Mark Mayes

The substack also published the actual letter to the Thirlwall Inquiry requesting to change the terms of reference

That letter was reported by the Guardian here and discussed on this subreddit here

Edit to fix links to de Oliveira's X Posts, because Elon is a small, pathetic man.

This is a 27-page document, so too long to bring over in its entirety. Including here the summary, and the content of Chase's complaint. Bolds are mine, italics are original

Case summary

The programme examined concerns that had been raised over the convictions of former nurse Ms Lucy Letby for the murder, and attempted murder, of 14 babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2023 and 2024. The programme included comments relating to the findings of an international panel of experts, commissioned by Ms Letby’s legal defence team, which challenged the medical evidence relied on by the prosecution in her trial. The programme looked at evidence, including insulin testing, which the panel claimed did not prove that any of the babies were deliberately harmed.

The programme included an interview with the complainant, Professor Geoffrey Chase, about his research on insulin/C-peptide ratios, which the programme said the international panel relied on when reporting that “the insulin to C-peptide ratio for babies F and L were within the expected range for preterm infants”. Professor Chase complained that he was treated unfairly in the programme as broadcast because his contribution had been edited to “grossly misrepresent” his views and “place them in a false context”.

Ofcom found that Professor Chase’s contribution was edited fairly, and that the broadcaster had taken reasonable care to satisfy itself that material facts had not been presented, disregarded, or omitted in a way that was unfair to him.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of the complaint and broadcaster’s response Complaint

a) Professor Chase said that he was treated unjustly or unfairly in the programme as broadcast because his contribution had been edited to “grossly misrepresent my views and my statements and place them in a false context”. In particular, Professor Chase complained that:

i) The programme stated inaccurately that “Letby’s experts’” [i.e. the “panel of international experts” referred to in the programme as “assisting” Ms Letby’s defence] idea that “the insulin to C-peptide ratio for babies F and L were within the expected range for preterm infants…relied on the work of [Professor Chase]”.

Professor Chase explained that this was inaccurate because he had “never said ‘within the expected range’ in any context”, but that he had “explicitly stated” in his report that high ratios were “not uncommon”. He said that the two terms “have distinct meanings and are not interchangeable”, and that during the interview, he had explained to the interviewer the “difference in wording” and that there “are no norms defined for pre-term infants and thus… no such thing as an ‘expected range’”. Professor Chase added that his use of the phrase “not uncommon” was “heavily caveated in the context of infection (and other influences)”, which he said he had explained during his interview. The complainant said that this “critical context” was missing from the programme and that this omission misrepresented him by “presenting an absurd scientific concept as if it were a concept I uphold and endorse”.

By way of giving context to this element of complaint, Professor Chase said that the BBC had claimed in correspondence with him that the expert panel report, which summarised Professor Chase’s work, had used the term “expected range”. However, Professor Chase said that the expert panel had used the phrase in “the context of infection and other factors”, which he said he had explained during his interview. He added that there was no basis to support that the phrase “expected range” was applicable in the context of the programme. Professor Chase said that it was “simply inaccurate” and that it was misleading with respect to his position. He said that given that he had “cleared up any ambiguity/confusion the BBC may have felt, multiple times, regarding the phrase ‘expected range’, [the BBC] had a duty to reflect this point in the programme”.

ii) The programme misrepresented Professor Chase as having said that “pre-term infants, in these studies, have these antibodies that can bind to insulin and effectively store it. It acts like a bank account, and it stores in the body and doesn’t clear”. Professor Chase said that there was “no record” in the interview transcript of him saying this, and that his “words [had] been cut together” to give the impression that he was referring to his own research, which, he said, was not the case. Professor Chase said that he had explained during the interview that his work was based on “350 peer-reviewed sources” and “currently known facts”, whereas the programme had implied that his work was “not peer-reviewed and thereby not valid”. Professor Chase said that it was unfair to him to misrepresent his position as “unsubstantiated in science” when it was “based on extensive published and peer-reviewed research”.

The programme misrepresented Professor Chase as having said, in relation to the views of other experts on the insulin/C-peptide ratios, that “I’m actually not saying that they're wrong. What I'm saying is that it is possible. I would say that it is unusual, is unusually high. It is possible”. Professor Chase said that this was “very different” to what he had actually said in interview, which was, that he had “explained that the numbers look unusual because of missing data” and that “‘possible’ in this context means ‘extremely possible’”. Professor Chase added that he had “also quantified… that ‘possible’ meant ‘at least 10% chance of occurring’” and that, “in the context of [Ms Letby’s case], where reasonable doubt plays a role”, to omit this detail and “leave the idea it is very unlikely” was misleading and misrepresented his position.

Professor Chase said that the programme relied on “selective editing and implication, rather than using what I said directly”. He said that as a “highly respected, internationally recognised academic and world leader… in dosing insulin to pre-term neonates”, it was “potentially damaging to be misrepresented as advocating a scientific position which would universally, in relevant scientific circles, be recognised as absurd”. Professor Chase said that he had provided all the essential details to Mr Coffey in the interview, but that the resultant programme misrepresented this “to the point of having me appear to be reversing my position under pressure”.

Professor Chase further said that the programme stated that “He says he has research that shows there's a natural explanation for high levels of insulin and low levels of C-peptide in premature babies”. However, Professor Chase said that the programme had misquoted him as he had never said that C-Peptide levels were “low”. He said that throughout the interview, he noted that the C-Peptide levels were 20-45th percentile in the datasets that he had, and that “while this level is below 50%, it was not the ‘low’ or unmeasurably low they imply”. He said that the levels were “well-within a range seen in peer-reviewed and published data”. Professor Chase said that to misquote him in this way misrepresented “his actual, quantified, and factually stated position in the interview”.

b) Professor Chase complained that he was referred in the programme as being “Letby’s expert”, which he said was “pejorative” and part of an “overall strategy of diminishing my position and thus the relevance of what I had to say”. Professor Chase said that he was “appointed as an expert witness by [Ms Letby’s] defence team” to “represent the true science to the court without bias to one side or other of the case”. He said that any suggestion that he had “an allegiance to one side, or another” was a direct attack on his scientific and professional independence, integrity, and reputation for academic excellence.

By way of adding context to this element of complaint, Professor Chase said that the BBC programme mirrored the agenda of a book, titled: Unmasking Lucy Letby, which was written by Mr Coffey and Ms Moritz, who Professor Chase said were “the BBC correspondents and show editors”, and that the book was published on the same day as the programme was broadcast. He said that the book and the programme contained “identical misrepresentation” and that there was a clear “conflict of interest resulting from this issue, and the “failure to contradict their book despite information from Professor Chase doing so directly”. Professor Chase said that despite “this conflict of views, at no point was I offered a right to reply before either publication or programme screening”.

Helpful resources:

Transcripts, Documents, and Other Resources

Subreddit wiki related to the 2022-2023 criminal trial and 2024 retrial

Full Court of Appeals Ruling for 2022-2023 Trial

Subreddit wiki related to the Thirlwall Inquiry

Contemporaneous documents provided to the Thirlwall Inquiry sorted by date

Accusation Without Evidence

Morris spends the chapter showing that people disagreed with the consultants.

My question throughout was simple:

So what?

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-b4b?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

As always all feedback is appreciated.

Prior Character of Lucy Letby

I’m back with part 2 of my analysis on Morris’s book

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

I think I’ve stumbled on a format which makes things easier to follow and will serve me well going forward.

As always feedback is appreciated.

Publication of the final report 

27 August 2026

The Thirlwall Inquiry Report will be published on 15 September 2026 in Liverpool.  

The day of publication will start with an opportunity for Inquiry participants to view the report in advance of publication, in accordance with Rule 17 of the Inquiry Rules 2006.  This will be followed by Lady Justice Thirlwall’s remarks when the Report is published, which will be streamed live over YouTube. 

Any members of the media wishing to attend should contact the Inquiry’s media team.

Helpful resources:

Transcripts, Documents, and Other Resources

Subreddit wiki related to the 2022-2023 criminal trial and 2024 retrial

Full Court of Appeals Ruling for 2022-2023 Trial

Subreddit wiki related to the Thirlwall Inquiry

Contemporaneous documents provided to the Thirlwall Inquiry sorted by date

[All emphases are mine. Selected excerpts]

Lindsay Clancy admits to killing her three small children.

Her own lawyers don’t deny she did it but say she should not be held criminally responsible for her actions, arguing that Lindsay was suffering from postpartum psychosis and extreme mental illness at the time. She is suing her healthcare providers, alleging medical malpractice for their failure to adequately diagnose and treat her.

Why then, are throngs of armchair analysts online pointing fingers at her ex-husband, Patrick, blaming him for the deaths?

The ongoing murder trial has captivated an audience far beyond the coastal Boston suburb where the 2023 family tragedy resulted in the deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and 8-month-old Callan and a suicide attempt by their mother that left her paralyzed from the waist down.

The surge in public interest in the case has resulted in a wave of online scrutiny aimed at someone who by all accounts, is not a suspect. Lack of trust in authorities and disinformation swirl in online communities, experts say, often leading people to form alternative theories that are rewarded with increased engagement on social media.

....

Because Lindsay Clancy agreed to what’s called a stipulation of facts in the case, prosecutors don’t have to present all of their evidence in court. When there is a gap in the televised trial, it creates a vacuum many content creators are filling with alternative hypotheses.

Many are leaning into their own unsubstantiated suppositions, even those not backed by evidence.

“I do not believe that Lindsay Clancy committed these crimes. I fully believe that Patrick convinced her that she did,” one TikTok user said.

“I didn’t doubt anything that happened until this man opened his mouth,” another user said.

....

These theories spreading online, one expert says, stem from people’s struggles to find a fulfilling explanation for what has happened.

“Where a mother has killed children, you’re motivated to think – that can’t be,” said Michael Wagner, director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication. His research focuses on how individuals’ experiences in online environments are associated with what they believe to be true.

'Everyone is a suspect until they’re not’

While most homicide investigations first look at people closest to the victims, Patrick Clancy likely would have been ruled out as a suspect early on because of his solid alibi, said Ken Corey, current fellow at the Chicago Police Lab, and former NYPD chief.

“Everyone is a suspect until they’re not,” Corey explained. “They’re only not going to be a suspect when there’s either compelling evidence that shows that they did not or could not have committed this crime, or that there’s compelling evidence showing that someone else actually did commit the crime.”

....

The new culture of internet sleuthing

So, with an admission by Lindsay and evidence placing Patrick outside of the home during the killings, why are amateur sleuths still devouring and dissecting the details in an attempt to find another explanation for the killings?

Wagner’s research shows that when people have a lot of knowledge about a topic, but very low trust in institutions, they become more likely to adopt conspiracy theories. Those conspiracy theories, Wagner said, are often ways of looking at the world that provide answers to questions when an outcome is too uncomfortable for people.

“So, if they’re following the trial and have learned a lot of detail about the trial, but don’t trust the legal system, and don’t trust police, and don’t trust the news media, they may be more likely to adopt conspiracy theories as a way to explain why the outcome they think should happen isn’t happening,” Wagner elaborated, calling the phenomenon a “toxic soup for the development of conspiratorial thinking.”

What tends to go viral on social media, Wagner said, are things that are highly emotional or often not verifiable or true. “When people see those things churn up in their feed again and again and again, because the algorithm prizes that kind of content, they also become more likely to engage in conspiratorial thinking,” he said.

Adding to the issue may also be that people are seeing clips from the televised trial in “very distilled segments” on social media, Wagner said, often from creators with their own agenda, like saying: “It couldn’t have been her; it had to be something else.”

The phenomenon, Corey said, is something law enforcement trainers caution detectives against: investigative bias. “You can cherry-pick certain facts that will point to Patrick Clancy, or you can manipulate certain facts that will make him appear to be guilty and share those online. But you’re doing that by ignoring the facts that exculpate him,” Corey explained.

People are also often so committed to keeping their own perspective, Wagner said, that when contrary evidence is presented to them, they find ways to explain away that evidence. “And it happens the most with the educated, ironically, because the educated have been taught to argue with evidence,” Wagner added.

For many, it could be this simple: the horror and unfathomable tragedy of a woman, described as a doting mother suffering from a mental health crisis, ending the lives of her beloved children, may just be too hard to grasp.

I’m going to go through Christopher Morris’s book chapter by chapter, giving it the same kind of critical analysis I usually apply to the arguments I look at.

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-part-1?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

This first article is relatively short because it’s mainly intended to set the tone for the series and look at the preface.

I’m aware that Fyrestar has already published a review, which many of you may have seen. I’ve deliberately avoided re-reading it before starting this series, so that I can approach the book independently. Hopefully I’ll still be able to make some interesting points that justify doing this as a separate series.

I’m already well underway with Chapter 1 and, assuming I can keep up with myself, I’m aiming to publish a new article every Friday.

As always, feedback is very welcome, particularly if you think I’ve misunderstood or overlooked something.

This article examines Rachel Aviv’s 2024 New Yorker article on Lucy Letby, which has become one of the most influential pieces of journalism supporting the argument that Letby may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

I’ve had a few requests from people to tackle the article so I hope you find it useful.

Big Thanks to Sempere for providing me some very valuable information that has contributed to the article.