Newly leaked documents have exposed significant discrepancies in the testimony of a key witness in the Lucy Letby case, raising questions about the handling of the investigation and the reliability of evidence presented at trial.
Dr. Ravi Jayaram, a consultant paediatrician whose testimony was crucial in convicting Letby of murder, had previously stated there was "no objective evidence" against the nurse, according to documents obtained by The Telegraph. This revelation comes approximately 13 months after Letby's initial conviction for the murders of seven newborns and attempted murders of six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
During Letby's trial, Dr. Jayaram claimed to have caught the nurse "virtually red handed" dislodging a breathing tube from a baby, known as Baby K, in February 2016. However, the leaked documents show that Dr. Jayaram did not mention this incident when interviewed during a grievance procedure brought by Letby in autumn 2016.
"The only association was Lucy's presence on the unit at the time. Anything else is speculation."
This contradiction has become a focal point in the ongoing Thirlwall Inquiry, which is investigating how the deaths and collapses at the hospital might have been prevented. The inquiry has questioned why Dr. Jayaram failed to bring the Baby K incident to the attention of the executive team during numerous reviews and investigations.
The documents also reveal that out of eight staff members interviewed during the grievance process, only two voiced concerns about Letby. Some colleagues, including Yvonne Griffiths, the deputy ward manager, described the case against Letby as a "witch hunt" and found it difficult to believe the allegations.
It's important to note that neonatal nurses, like Letby, specialize in caring for newborn infants, particularly those born prematurely or with health issues. The Countess of Chester Hospital, where these events took place, is located in Chester, England.
The case has highlighted the complexities of using statistical evidence in criminal trials, as well as the crucial role of witness testimony. In the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is responsible for prosecuting such cases, and the General Medical Council (GMC) may investigate any potential professional misconduct by medical staff involved.
As the Thirlwall Inquiry continues, led by Lady Justice Thirlwall, it will undoubtedly scrutinize the handling of evidence and the procedures followed during the investigation. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of thorough and transparent investigations in the medical field, especially when dealing with unexpected infant deaths.
The revelation of these contradictory statements has added a new layer of complexity to an already challenging case, prompting further questions about the conviction and the processes that led to it.