QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Mark McDonald, Letby’s defence barrister, said: “One of the major concerns in relation to the police investigation is whether it pre-selected cases based on whether Lucy Letby was working. “This was a self-fulfilling investigation. They identified a suspect and then they found the babies to match the suspect.”
-------------------------------------
PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "One of the emails that made its way to police following Letby’s 2018 arrest came from a mother whose newborn son died at 13 days old, after what she described as multiple failings in his care at the Countess. The baby boy had been born in late December 2016, nearly six months after Letby’s banishment from the neonatal unit. Doctors misdiagnosed him with a bowel condition, leading to an unnecessary surgery at a different hospital, and had failed to pick up on a viral infection that caused his liver to fail, according to the mother. When her son died, the consultant at the hospital that operated on him told her that the surgery he did not need, for a condition he did not have, contributed to his death. “I just would like a little bit of advice on how to go about looking into the care my baby and I received,” the mother wrote in her email to police. “I have all notes from his stay and I am shocked at some things I had read. I believe there were failings in my care, and I would like these to be addressed.”
--------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The Telegraph has verified the details provided in the mother’s email about her son, and understands that Cheshire Constabulary did not demonstrate an interest in investigating the circumstances surrounding his care. Dr Dewi Evans, the prosecution’s lead expert witness at Letby’s trial, told this paper he does not recall being asked to review the baby’s case during the police investigation."
----------------------------
STORY: The Telegraph (Journalist Cleuci de Oliveira), reports that, Letby police ignored other baby deaths on the unit, on February 7, 2026.
SUB-HEADING: "Parents’ queries over babies’ care dismissed because they were in hospital after nurse convicted of murders left, emails reveal."
GIST: "Police investigating the baby unit where Lucy Letby worked brushed off deaths and potentially suspicious events that occurred after she had stopped working there, leaked emails have revealed.
After Letby’s arrest made national headlines in 2018, a number of parents contacted police with concerns about what their babies experienced on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital.
Several described events that bore striking similarities to the cases Cheshire Constabulary was treating as suspicious, but which took place after Letby had stopped working on the unit as a neonatal nurse.
These parents’ accounts were dismissed, with an officer telling them that the investigation was only looking at events on the unit until July 2016 – the month Letby was forced out of her job before being charged with murdering babies there.
The newly uncovered emails are likely to lend weight to accusations that police fixated on Letby from the start, at the expense of investigating all possible causes for babies’ deaths and collapses, and that incidents were selected to match dates and times she was there.
Mark McDonald, Letby’s defence barrister, said: “One of the major concerns in relation to the police investigation is whether it pre-selected cases based on whether Lucy Letby was working.
“This was a self-fulfilling investigation. They identified a suspect and then they found the babies to match the suspect.”
Letby was convicted in August 2023 of murdering seven babies, and attempting to murder seven more, at the Countess of Chester between 2015–2016.
The neonatal unit had seen a spike in mortality during this period, going from an average of two to three baby deaths a year to 13 deaths in the span of 13 months.
Senior doctors became suspicious that Letby could be deliberately harming the babies after noticing that she always seemed to be on duty when one died or collapsed unexpectedly.
Deaths ‘not part of our inquiry’
A report by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health noted “sudden mottling” as one of the “similarities” doctors had noticed in the cases they associated with Letby.
After the nurse’s arrest, one father wrote to police, concerned after he had read reports about the “unexplained sudden mottling” observed on some of the babies she was suspected of harming.
The father noted that his son’s doctors had also “picked up on unexplained mottling of his skin, his entire body”. But his son had been treated in the neonatal unit in September 2017 – more than a year after Letby had stopped working there.
In response to the father’s email, a family liaison officer with Cheshire Constabulary reassured him “it doesn’t appear that our enquiry is linked” to his son’s time at the Countess, because “our enquiry end date in [sic] July 2016”.
Another set of parents contacted the investigation with concerns that their son’s care “was medically mismanaged potentially as a deliberate act”.
The parents wanted to know whether the “major life-threatening issues” with their son’s airway, which they had originally understood to be the result of medics mistakenly “using the wrong diameter equipment”, were in fact the result of “deliberate actions and with malicious intent”.
The same family liaison officer told the parents that their son “will not be included in our enquiry” since he had been treated at the Countess after July 2016. “I would like to assure you that we believe that this is our end date,” the officer wrote.
The question of whether babies’ collapses and deaths were caused by deliberate harm or failures in care is at the heart of the growing controversy surrounding Letby’s convictions.
In the case of one baby girl, known as Baby K, prosecutors accused Letby of dislodging her breathing tube, causing a collapse.
The defence, however, pointed out that the breathing tube doctors had used was too narrow, causing a 94 per cent air leak – meaning that the baby’s lungs were only receiving 6 per cent of the air meant for them.
The jury could not decide on a verdict for the attempted murder of Baby K at Letby’s original trial. The former nurse was retried on this single charge, and convicted.
But a panel of experts, working with her new defence team, has re-examined the case of each baby, and found no evidence of deliberate harm.
One of the emails that made its way to police following Letby’s 2018 arrest came from a mother whose newborn son died at 13 days old, after what she described as multiple failings in his care at the Countess.
The baby boy had been born in late December 2016, nearly six months after Letby’s banishment from the neonatal unit. Doctors misdiagnosed him with a bowel condition, leading to an unnecessary surgery at a different hospital, and had failed to pick up on a viral infection that caused his liver to fail, according to the mother.
When her son died, the consultant at the hospital that operated on him told her that the surgery he did not need, for a condition he did not have, contributed to his death.
“I just would like a little bit of advice on how to go about looking into the care my baby and I received,” the mother wrote in her email to police. “I have all notes from his stay and I am shocked at some things I had read.
“I believe there were failings in my care, and I would like these to be addressed.”
The Telegraph has verified the details provided in the mother’s email about her son, and understands that Cheshire Constabulary did not demonstrate an interest in investigating the circumstances surrounding his care.
Dr Dewi Evans, the prosecution’s lead expert witness at Letby’s trial, told this paper he does not recall being asked to review the baby’s case during the police investigation.
A spokesman for Cheshire Constabulary said: “Operation Hummingbird reviewed approximately 4,000 neonatal admissions at Liverpool Women’s Hospital and the Countess of Chester Hospital from 2011-2016. This included periods before, during, and after Lucy Letby’s employment, and all times she was on or off duty.
“The investigation was not focused on Lucy Letby; every case was assessed independently.
“The team also re-examined all neonatal deaths from 2011-2018, ensuring each was fully investigated regardless of Lucy Letby’s employment status.
“Since 2018, all neonatal and maternity deaths at the Countess of Chester Hospital have received full senior investigating officer oversight, with formal reporting into Operation Hummingbird. Cheshire Police will not be responding further.”
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/07/letby-police-ignored-other-baby-deaths-on-unit/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
