QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Mark McDonald, Letby’s barrister, said: “In 27 years as a criminal barrister, I have never encountered an investigation in which we have identified so many serious errors.“Individually they are deeply concerning; collectively they raise fundamental questions about the safety of these convictions. The Court of Appeal must now be given the opportunity to examine those failings in full.”
--------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "After being confronted about the errors in the swipe data in the interview, Dr Jayaram abandoned the precise timings, saying the attack was “probably earlier” and blaming “retrospective notes” for the discrepancy. Sir David said: “It is deeply troubling to see what appears to be the police and a key witness reshaping the interpretation of the evidence to Lucy Letby’s disadvantage in advance of her retrial. “It reinforces that the investigation was driven by a fixed theory and a degree of complicity between the police and some of the consultants. Cheshire police’s handling of this case should be reviewed by another force.”
-------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Letby, 36, of Hereford, was sentenced to 15 full life terms for the murders of seven babies and the attempted murders of seven others. Sir David Davis wants Cheshire Constabulary to be investigated over the handling of the Letby case Credit: PA Since her conviction, experts in neonatal care, statistics and law have come forward to voice their concerns about the verdict, claiming the babies probably died because of prematurity and poor care, and highlighting problems with the investigation and trial. Cheshire Police has previously been accused of being overawed by the consultants and fixating on Letby, while failing to properly investigate other possible causes of the deaths and collapses The Criminal Cases Review Commission which looks into potential miscarriages of justice is examining the case."
----------------------------------------
STORY: "Police ‘reshaped’ Letby witness testimony to get round mistake, claims David Davis," by Science Editor Sarah Knapton, published by The Telegraph, on July 31, 2026. (Sarah Lnapton has previously been named Science Journalist of the Year and was Highly Commended at the Society of Editors Press Awards. She is known for her coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Lucy Letby case);
SUB-HEADING: "Officer told consultant that the ‘interpretation’ of data used in trial could be changed for retrial."
Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant, initially said he found Letby alone with a baby in the early hours of the morning
Sir David has previously called for Dr Jayaram to be investigated for perjury, after an email emerged from before the first trial suggesting it was Letby herself who called for his help after Baby K collapsed.
In an email to colleagues on May 4, 2017, he described Baby K’s deterioration and suggested Letby called him about low oxygen levels, writing: “Staff nurse Letby [was] at incubator and called Dr Jayaram to inform of low saturations.”
He also said that the baby’s death was consistent with complications from extreme prematurity.
However, during the trial, when Nick Johnson KC, the prosecutor, asked Dr Jayaram: “Did you hear any call for help from Lucy Letby?” he answered “No, not at all.”
Letby, 36, of Hereford, was sentenced to 15 full life terms for the murders of seven babies and the attempted murders of seven others.
Sir David Davis wants Cheshire Constabulary to be investigated over the handling of the Letby case Credit: PA
Since her conviction, experts in neonatal care, statistics and law have come forward to voice their concerns about the verdict, claiming the babies probably died because of prematurity and poor care, and highlighting problems with the investigation and trial.
Cheshire Police has previously been accused of being overawed by the consultants and fixating on Letby, while failing to properly investigate other possible causes of the deaths and collapses.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission which looks into potential miscarriages of justice is examining the case.
Mark McDonald, Letby’s barrister, said: “In 27 years as a criminal barrister, I have never encountered an investigation in which we have identified so many serious errors.
“Individually they are deeply concerning; collectively they raise fundamental questions about the safety of these convictions. The Court of Appeal must now be given the opportunity to examine those failings in full.”
Cheshire Constabulary previously said it stood by the investigation and convictions and said the Court of Appeal had already confirmed the verdicts on two occasions.
The Telegraph has contacted Dr Jayaram for comment. Cheshire Constabulary has declined to comment."
PHOTO CAPTION: "Lucy Letby is serving 15 full life terms in prison, but several experts have questioned her convictions."
GIST: "Police and a key witness in Lucy Letby’s trial worked together to “reshape” testimony to get round data that could have exculpated the nurse, Sir David Davis has claimed.
Between Letby’s first trial and a retrial for attempted murder of one baby, police realised they had mixed up door-swipe data from Countess of Chester Hospital. The nurse was not in fact alone with Baby K at the time she was accused of attacking the infants in 2016, the correct data showed.
Interview notes, released by Sir David, a former Tory minister, show that police were aware that the timeline presented to the jury no longer worked, and discussed the issue with Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant, before the retrial, after the first jury failed to reach a verdict.
An officer told Dr Jayaram: “We can’t change the data. But we can change the interpretation of it.”
Dr Jayaram originally said he discovered Letby alone, standing over Baby K at 3.50am on Feb 17 2016. The baby girl was deteriorating, and her breathing tube had been dislodged, he claimed, and he made a note of the time of collapse in his notes.
The prosecution originally told jurors door-swipe data had shown the baby’s designated nurse had left the intensive care unit at 3.47am, giving Letby three minutes to attack the infant. But the correct door-swipe data showed Letby was not alone when the baby collapsed.
After being confronted about the errors in the swipe data in the interview, Dr Jayaram abandoned the precise timings, saying the attack was “probably earlier” and blaming “retrospective notes” for the discrepancy.
Sir David said: “It is deeply troubling to see what appears to be the police and a key witness reshaping the interpretation of the evidence to Lucy Letby’s disadvantage in advance of her retrial.
“It reinforces that the investigation was driven by a fixed theory and a degree of complicity between the police and some of the consultants. Cheshire police’s handling of this case should be reviewed by another force.”
Between Letby’s first trial and a retrial for attempted murder of one baby, police realised they had mixed up door-swipe data from Countess of Chester Hospital. The nurse was not in fact alone with Baby K at the time she was accused of attacking the infants in 2016, the correct data showed.
Interview notes, released by Sir David, a former Tory minister, show that police were aware that the timeline presented to the jury no longer worked, and discussed the issue with Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant, before the retrial, after the first jury failed to reach a verdict.
An officer told Dr Jayaram: “We can’t change the data. But we can change the interpretation of it.”
Dr Jayaram originally said he discovered Letby alone, standing over Baby K at 3.50am on Feb 17 2016. The baby girl was deteriorating, and her breathing tube had been dislodged, he claimed, and he made a note of the time of collapse in his notes.
The prosecution originally told jurors door-swipe data had shown the baby’s designated nurse had left the intensive care unit at 3.47am, giving Letby three minutes to attack the infant. But the correct door-swipe data showed Letby was not alone when the baby collapsed.
After being confronted about the errors in the swipe data in the interview, Dr Jayaram abandoned the precise timings, saying the attack was “probably earlier” and blaming “retrospective notes” for the discrepancy.
Sir David said: “It is deeply troubling to see what appears to be the police and a key witness reshaping the interpretation of the evidence to Lucy Letby’s disadvantage in advance of her retrial.
“It reinforces that the investigation was driven by a fixed theory and a degree of complicity between the police and some of the consultants. Cheshire police’s handling of this case should be reviewed by another force.”
Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant, initially said he found Letby alone with a baby in the early hours of the morning
Sir David has previously called for Dr Jayaram to be investigated for perjury, after an email emerged from before the first trial suggesting it was Letby herself who called for his help after Baby K collapsed.
In an email to colleagues on May 4, 2017, he described Baby K’s deterioration and suggested Letby called him about low oxygen levels, writing: “Staff nurse Letby [was] at incubator and called Dr Jayaram to inform of low saturations.”
He also said that the baby’s death was consistent with complications from extreme prematurity.
However, during the trial, when Nick Johnson KC, the prosecutor, asked Dr Jayaram: “Did you hear any call for help from Lucy Letby?” he answered “No, not at all.”
Letby, 36, of Hereford, was sentenced to 15 full life terms for the murders of seven babies and the attempted murders of seven others.
Sir David Davis wants Cheshire Constabulary to be investigated over the handling of the Letby case Credit: PA
Since her conviction, experts in neonatal care, statistics and law have come forward to voice their concerns about the verdict, claiming the babies probably died because of prematurity and poor care, and highlighting problems with the investigation and trial.
Cheshire Police has previously been accused of being overawed by the consultants and fixating on Letby, while failing to properly investigate other possible causes of the deaths and collapses.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission which looks into potential miscarriages of justice is examining the case.
Mark McDonald, Letby’s barrister, said: “In 27 years as a criminal barrister, I have never encountered an investigation in which we have identified so many serious errors.
“Individually they are deeply concerning; collectively they raise fundamental questions about the safety of these convictions. The Court of Appeal must now be given the opportunity to examine those failings in full.”
Cheshire Constabulary previously said it stood by the investigation and convictions and said the Court of Appeal had already confirmed the verdicts on two occasions.
The Telegraph has contacted Dr Jayaram for comment. Cheshire Constabulary has declined to comment."
The entire story can be read at:
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;
