Top doctors’ convictions on “Killer Nurses” Lucy Letby caused serious suspicion

An international group consisting of 14 newborn and pediatric experts on Tuesday proposed a skepticism of British nurse Lucy Letby. The evidence murdered seven babies at her work hospital in 2023 to be guilty.

At a dramatic press conference held in London, Dr. SHOO Lee, the chairman of the group, the Canadian newborn scholar, said that the extensive independent review of his chairman did not find that Ms. Wright had murdered or attempted to murder the evidence of any baby.

He also emphasized the annoying discovery, pointing out that the medical care of the dying department was seriously wrong, and in the long -term failure of the management of the newborns. He said that some deaths can be prevented.

Dr. Li said: “Our conclusion is that there is no malfeasant behavior that causes harm to any of the 17 cases of medical evidence in the test.” “In short, ladies, gentlemen, we have not found any murders.”

The reason why this comment is important is because it is conducted by some of the most famous and most respected newborn and pediatric experts in the world.

Experts are allowed to evaluate all the available medical records related to infants and provide free evaluation. The team emphasized the serious past situation of some babies. In some cases, experts discovered serious errors for baby treatment or care.

Ms. Lyby, 35, was sentenced to a lifelong order in 2023, which means that she will put her rest of her life in prison after killing seven babies and trying to murder seven babies in the county’s newborn unit. In 2015 and 2016 in the Chest Hospital in northwestern England. She has always maintained innocence.

The Earl of the Chest Hospital contacted on Tuesday for comments and said that the hospital focused on conducting police investigations and public investigations related to the case.

Dr. Li led an independent review of baby cases. This case involved expert groups from Britain, Canada, Germany, Japan, Sweden, and the United States.

He emphasized the independence of the group and pointed out that when experts began to investigate, they clearly stated that the report would be released whether it was good or unfavorable for Ms. Letby.

He said that they just focused on “the cause of fair death based on evidence.”

The review found that all babies died or harmed or harmed due to natural reasons or medical care errors.

Dr. Li wrote an academic papers published in 1989. The paper studied the air embolism in the blood of the baby and pointed out some signs of showing the color of the skin. The study was strongly dependent on the main expert witnesses of the main expert witnesses in the Leitby case. Dr. Evans argued in court that some dead or deteriorating babies showed similar models on the skin.

After the trial, Dr. Li found that his research was used to convict Ms. Laiby. He agreed to give evidence in Ms. Lyby’s appeal, telling the hearing Dr. Evans misunderstood his discovery, and none of the babies in the trial should be diagnosed with air embolism. In the end, the Court of Appeal decided not to hear his evidence and believe that Ms. Lyby’s defense team should call Dr. Li in the original trial.

The group checked the case of each baby and emphasized the detailed discovery of some cases and groups during the briefing.

Regarding “Baby 1”, the prosecutor claimed that he was killed by Ms. Lyby by injection air into the infant vein. The group determined that the cause of death was formed by the thrombosis of existing problems.

Another child determined by the group as “Baby 9”. The prosecutor believes that after Ms. Lyby injected air, the expert found that he died. Outside the problem. The group also found that the death of a baby may be prevented and describes many errors in treatment.

In the case of “Baby 11”, the prosecutor argued that Ms. Lyby deliberately expelled the respiratory tube. But experts say that there is no evidence to support the statement that the tube has been expelled. They believe that the consultant doctor tried to restore the baby’s preliminary attempts to be “traumatic and supervised”, but used the wrong device, and the doctor “did not understand the basic knowledge of mechanical ventilation equipment”.

Dr. Li said in a summary of the case, “It’s just that the consultant doesn’t know what he is doing.”

Dr. Nena Modi, a member of the London Empire College and a professor of newborn, said, “The cause of the death of these babies is very reasonable.”

She said: “Destination, delay in diagnosis, and inappropriate or absence of treatment combinations.” “Obviously, the systemic factors we have determined and the personal factors we have determined.”

Ms. Lyby lost her two alone attempts last year to attract her faith.

In December, Ms. Lyby’s lawyer Mark McDonald said he would ask the Court of Appeal to review all her beliefs because Dr. Evans, a prosecution witness, had changed how the three babies died idea.

Dr. Evans has repeatedly supported his evidence. He told the London Times last weekend that he was “very worried about the fact that people’s facts were wrong.”

Experts used to question the cause of the baby’s death. In December, the National Defense Group introduced the evidence of Dr. Neil Aiton, a newborn scholar Neil Aiton and Dr. Svilena Dmitrova. They specifically studied the care of premature babies. The conclusions of these experts are that the two babies who were convicted of Ms. Lyby did not go smoothly and died of “recognizable medical reasons”.

Doctors who consulted the baby’s medical records found that those who were determined to be a baby C died at the end of pregnancy due to the placenta problem. Their conclusion is that another BABY O died of death due to the problem related to recovery.

Lawyer McDonald’s said on Tuesday that he had applied to the Criminal Case Review Committee, which was responsible for investigating claims of judicial abortion. He also pointed out that he had shared evidence with Ms. Lyby, although he refused to share her further details, but he said: “She has hope, this is only I can only say.”

The Criminal Case Review Committee confirmed that the request had received a request to check the case, but it is unclear how long the case needs to be.

A spokesman for the comment agency said: “We know that there are many speculations and comments around the case of the Lucy Letby, most of which are part of the views of the evidence.” The incident should be kept in mind.

The spokesman pointed out that the committee is not “confirming or guilty in the case”, “this is the court’s problem.”