Newly published research has raised further concerns about the safety of Lucy Letby’s convictions for poisoning babies with insulin. The former nurse was convicted of injecting insulin into the feed bags of two babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016. Two infants were found to have ‘abnormally high’ readings and the prosecution argued blood insulin levels were so high that it was ‘impossible’ they occurred naturally.
Letby was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital. The prosecution argued that infants were murdered or harmed via the administration of insulin and the injection of air (air embolisms). The air embolism argument has been seriously undermined by the author of the article that the prosecution expert relied upon (see here for report on Dr Shoo Lee).
- Latest issue of PROOF features Steve Phelps on the media and the ‘framing of Lucy Letby’ – monster or innocent miscarriage of justice? Prof Richard Gill and Dr Svilena Dimitrova on ‘how to become a serial killer without killing anyone’; and interview with Mark McDonald
- Buy HERE
The Journal of Diabetes, Science and Technology has now published a peer reviewed article in which Professor Geoff Chase, an insulin expert and Helen Shannon, a chemical engineer, argue that four in 10 preterm babies had high insulin readings, and that babies were often born with antibodies that bind to insulin, effectively storing the hormone and keeping levels elevated (as reported by Sarah Knapton in the Daily Telegraph).
Referring to the Letby case, Prof Chase said: ‘This “impossible” result is effectively quite common.’ As reported previously on the Justice Gap, Prof Chase and Shannon have previously argued that significantly higher quantities of insulin would be needed to have harmed the babies and, in the case of Baby L, as much as 20-80 times more undermine the prosecution case that it had only taken a small amount of insulin to have killed each baby.
Sarah Knapton argues their article’s inclusion in a major scientific journal ‘effectively rubber stamps the research as peer review is considered the gold standard’. Sir David Davis, who had been championing Letby’s innocence, said: ‘This paper shows that there is a far more plausible explanation. This is clear new evidence and should persuade the CCRC to immediately refer the case back to the Court of Appeal since the insulin evidence was integral to Letby’s conviction.’
