PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Letby, 35, from Hereford, is serving 15 whole-life orders for the murder of seven infants and attempted murder of seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016. However, since her conviction, dozens of scientists, medics and statisticians have come forward to question how the evidence was presented to the jury. New medical evidence has emerged questioning the testimonies of the prosecution experts, and a panel of 14 international experts concluded that there had been no murders, only substandard care of premature and sick babies."
------------------------------------------
STORY: "Leader of House promises to raise ‘serious’ Letby concerns with ministers," by Science Editor Sarah Knapton, published by The Telegraph, on June 25, 2026. (Sarah Knapton is the Science Editor of The Telegraph and has covered all areas of science since 2013. She has previously been named Science Journalist of The Year, was Highly Commended at the Society of Editors Press Awards, and is known for her extensive coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic, and her investigative work on the Lucy Letby case. Sarah previously worked for the Guardian, Central News and The Evening Chronicle in Newcastle."
SUB-HEADING: "Forensic expert’s intervention echoes worries ‘on both sides of the House’, warns Sir Alan Campbell.
GIST: "The Leader of the House of Commons has promised to raise Lucy Letby’s case with ministers following an intervention from one of Britain’s leading forensic scientists.
Sir Alan Campbell said it was a “serious matter” and warned there were now concerns about the case “on both sides of the House”, adding that he would bring up the matter with “ministerial colleagues”.
On Wednesday, Prof Dame Sue Black, a member of the House of Lords, told The Telegraph that “something went wrong” in the Letby case and questioned why no expert witnesses were called by the defence.
“What on earth is that about?” she said. “How is a jury supposed to make an informed decision about which side of the argument they believe when they’re so mismatched? To me, it seems as if something went wrong.”Her comments were raised in the House of Commons by Jesse Norman, the shadow leader of the House, who said there were “profound questions” to be asked about the trial and what the jury was, and was not, told.
“Like me, Dame Sue makes no claim as to whether Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty, but she has said in measured terms that she is troubled by the conviction and by the apparent lack of forensic evidence.
“When someone of her public scientific standing speaks in these terms, I do not think the issue she raises can be properly avoided.
“I remind the House that there were no witnesses, no CCTV footage, no forensic evidence, and no confession in this case. Everything therefore depended on the testimony of experts.
“But when it came to the defence, in the words of Dame Sue Black, there were no medical or statistical experts put forward at all.”
Letby, 35, from Hereford, is serving 15 whole-life orders for the murder of seven infants and attempted murder of seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.
However, since her conviction, dozens of scientists, medics and statisticians have come forward to question how the evidence was presented to the jury.
New medical evidence has emerged questioning the testimonies of the prosecution experts, and a panel of 14 international experts concluded that there had been no murders, only substandard care of premature and sick babies.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission, which deals with potential miscarriages of justice, is examining the case. A public inquiry into the case was due to report back in 2025 but has been delayed several times.
Mr Norman said that he believed there was “a proper public concern” about the safety of the verdict and said a “number of serious and reputable people” had now questioned the scientific and statistical evidence in the case.
Letby was first accused by consultants at the Countess of Chester who claimed she was always present when babies collapsed and died.
But Mr Norman said that the jury did not hear that Letby had won a grievance against the doctors.
“I’d also highlight that Lucy Letby had had a prior complaint against the consultants in the hospital,” he added.
“This was upheld after a detailed investigation and report which found there was absolutely nothing to prevent her returning to work and that doctors had bullied and harassed her.
“This evidence, too, was never heard by the jury.”
Responding to Mr Norman, Sir Alan said: “In terms of Lucy Letby, the right honourable gentleman does raise a serious matter and I know it is of concern not just on his side of the House but on our side of the House, too.
“It is important that that decision was sound and safe and therefore I will raise it with ministerial colleagues, and should he wish to express his concern directly to ministerial colleagues I’ll arrange that for him too.""
The entire story can be read at:
eadad4a5a33d3def
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. 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. 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;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GIST: "The Leader of the House of Commons has promised to raise Lucy Letby’s case with ministers following an intervention from one of Britain’s leading forensic scientists.
Sir Alan Campbell said it was a “serious matter” and warned there were now concerns about the case “on both sides of the House”, adding that he would bring up the matter with “ministerial colleagues”.
On Wednesday, Prof Dame Sue Black, a member of the House of Lords, told The Telegraph that “something went wrong” in the Letby case and questioned why no expert witnesses were called by the defence.
“What on earth is that about?” she said. “How is a jury supposed to make an informed decision about which side of the argument they believe when they’re so mismatched? To me, it seems as if something went wrong.”Her comments were raised in the House of Commons by Jesse Norman, the shadow leader of the House, who said there were “profound questions” to be asked about the trial and what the jury was, and was not, told.
“Like me, Dame Sue makes no claim as to whether Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty, but she has said in measured terms that she is troubled by the conviction and by the apparent lack of forensic evidence.
“When someone of her public scientific standing speaks in these terms, I do not think the issue she raises can be properly avoided.
“I remind the House that there were no witnesses, no CCTV footage, no forensic evidence, and no confession in this case. Everything therefore depended on the testimony of experts.
“But when it came to the defence, in the words of Dame Sue Black, there were no medical or statistical experts put forward at all.”
Letby, 35, from Hereford, is serving 15 whole-life orders for the murder of seven infants and attempted murder of seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.
However, since her conviction, dozens of scientists, medics and statisticians have come forward to question how the evidence was presented to the jury.
New medical evidence has emerged questioning the testimonies of the prosecution experts, and a panel of 14 international experts concluded that there had been no murders, only substandard care of premature and sick babies.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission, which deals with potential miscarriages of justice, is examining the case. A public inquiry into the case was due to report back in 2025 but has been delayed several times.
Mr Norman said that he believed there was “a proper public concern” about the safety of the verdict and said a “number of serious and reputable people” had now questioned the scientific and statistical evidence in the case.
Letby was first accused by consultants at the Countess of Chester who claimed she was always present when babies collapsed and died.
But Mr Norman said that the jury did not hear that Letby had won a grievance against the doctors.
“I’d also highlight that Lucy Letby had had a prior complaint against the consultants in the hospital,” he added.
“This was upheld after a detailed investigation and report which found there was absolutely nothing to prevent her returning to work and that doctors had bullied and harassed her.
“This evidence, too, was never heard by the jury.”
Responding to Mr Norman, Sir Alan said: “In terms of Lucy Letby, the right honourable gentleman does raise a serious matter and I know it is of concern not just on his side of the House but on our side of the House, too.
“It is important that that decision was sound and safe and therefore I will raise it with ministerial colleagues, and should he wish to express his concern directly to ministerial colleagues I’ll arrange that for him too.""
The entire story can be read at:
eadad4a5a33d3def
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. 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. 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;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
