Felicity Lawrence’s remarkable report on the Lucy Letby trial raises many questions that – despite the suffering for the families involved – need to be followed up (Lucy Letby: Murderer or Coincidence? Why Some Experts Question the Evidence, July 9).
As a non-lawyer and non-statistician, I will discuss the one aspect that should resonate with everyone. That is the references to people working in the NHS who raise concerns but wish to remain anonymous, “for fear of the impact of being named”.
The idea that in 2024 the benefits of openness and transparency are not being learnt to the extent that neonatal nurses who raised concerns with an NHS consultant neonatologist were “afraid of going public” is a symptom of unacceptable public governance. This needs to be addressed urgently.
Jeff Rooker
Labour, House of Lords
As a retired pediatrician, I am responding to Felicity Lawrence’s article on the evidence in the Lucy Letby trial.
Before 2005, a procedure known as the “whoosh” test was commonly used to inject air through a nasogastric tube in newborns. By listening for a “whoosh” across the abdomen, the sound of expelled air indicated that the distal end of the feeding tube was properly placed.
This procedure was later abandoned due to lack of accuracy rather than safety.
After reviewing the neonatal literature, I have been unable to find any evidence that air was injected into the stomach and that this led to collapse or death.
Ivan Blumenthal
Swanland, East Yorkshire
Your report states that the evidence of Dr. Shoo Lee, “who recently retired after a career as one of Canada’s top neonatologists … was inadmissible in the Court of Appeal, with the judges saying the defence could have called him at trial.”
Does this mean that the Court of Appeal will not consider further evidence, however strong, if it was not adduced in the trial? Is this the high – nay, world-class – standard of British justice? I do not think so. Perhaps the whole system needs a fundamental overhaul.
Simon Lauris Hudson
Pontefract, West Yorkshire