THE blonde nurse bowed her head in court as she was sentenced to life for killing babies on her watch.
Prosecutors claimed the smoking gun evidence came from a string of “sinister” diary entries — and hospital shift patterns which revealed she had been present at all of the deaths.
SWNSKiller nurse Lucy Letby was convicted of ruthlessly murdering seven babies in her care[/caption]
WikipediaDutch nurse Lucia de Berk was wrongly convicted of killing seven patients, including babies[/caption]
AFPDe Berk leaving court after her acquittal in 2010[/caption]
GettySome insist Letby has been made a scapegoat for hospital failings[/caption]
Suspicious staff had blown the whistle after one too many coincidences between the babies dying and the “oddball” nurse. And a nation had recoiled in horror.
Sound familiar?
Well, this condemned baby-killer was not Lucy Letby, the “Angel of Death” British nurse now serving 15 life sentences.
This was Dutch nurse Lucia de Berk — found guilty of killing seven and attempting to kill three of her young patients in 2003 and 2004.
In an astonishing about-face, the “worst serial killer” in the history of the Netherlands then had her convictions overturned before she was exonerated seven years later.
Now — as top doctors question the science behind Letby’s conviction — critics are using De Berk’s case to highlight how doubts over 35-year-old neonatal nurse Letby’s case could very well be justified.
And Professor Richard Gill, a statistician who was part of the team that freed de Berk, has told The Sun he believes he can use the same arguments to also clear her British counterpart.
De Berk, then 40, was jailed for life with no parole in 2003. She had worked as a paediatric nurse across three hospitals between 1997 and 2001.
But, as in Letby’s case, her colleagues became suspicious that patients often died under her watch.
‘Obsessed with death’
These hunches were deepened when a post-mortem carried out on a five-month-old baby who had died suddenly suggested foul play.
So Dutch police launched a mammoth investigation, finding that in a few cases there was evidence of poisoning — although in most deaths no real explanation could be found.
Despite the doubt, de Berk was charged with killing 13 patients and attempting to kill five others by injecting them with tranquillisers, painkillers and potassium.
Her trial — which began in September 2002 — included evidence that bore a chilling similarity to that used in Letby’s case.
There were diary entries de Berk had attempted to burn that the prosecution claimed showed that she was “obsessed by death”.
Police had also found books about crimes and murders in her home.
And medical experts were called to give evidence — claiming the deaths showed some patients received increasing dosages of drugs.
Ultimately she was convicted of murdering four patients and attempting to kill three others after prosecutors argued she was the very last person at their bedside.
But Professor Richard Gill said the Letby and de Berk cases are “incredibly similar” and include many of the same “mistakes”.
He said: “The ball is rolling. Lots of people are convinced that this was probably a miscarriage of justice.”
News Group Newspapers LtdProfessor Richard Gill said the Letby and de Berk cases are ‘incredibly similar’[/caption]
RexDe Berk reacts after her acquittal in 2010[/caption]
Letby said ‘I’m innocent’ as she was led from the dock when she was sentencedAFP
murderpedia.orgDe Berk worked at three hospitals in The Hague[/caption]
murderpedia.orgShe spent years in prison before being acquitted[/caption]
And he said the evidence used to convict de Berk was just in-depth statistical probabilities that were later proven to be inaccurate.
De Berk spent five years behind bars at Scheveningen prison before the case went to the appeal court.
Speaking after her acquittal in 2010, she said: “I want to warn people, especially nurses: What happened to me can happen to you too.”
Now — 15 years after de Berk walked free — Dr Gill revealed to The Sun what the reclusive de Berk, who has not spoken to the Press for years, told him when asked about Letby.
The nurse, who is now aged 63, said the case “causes her anguish”.
Letby was sentenced to 15 whole life orders after two trials across 2023 and 2024.
She was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill eight more while working at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016.
The charges Letby was convicted on in full
Child A, allegation of murder. The Crown said Letby injected air intravenously into the bloodstream of the baby boy. COUNT 1 GUILTY.
Child B, allegation of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby attempted to murder the baby girl, the twin sister of Child A, by injecting air into her bloodstream. COUNT 2 GUILTY.
Child C, allegation of murder. Prosecutors said Letby forced air down a feeding tube and into the stomach of the baby boy. COUNT 3 GUILTY.
Child D, allegation of murder. The Crown said air was injected intravenously into the baby girl. COUNT 4 GUILTY.
Child E, allegation of murder. The Crown said Letby murdered the twin baby boy with an injection of air into the bloodstream and also deliberately caused bleeding to the infant. COUNT 5 GUILTY.
Child F, allegation of attempted murder. Letby was said by prosecutors to have poisoned the twin brother of Child E with insulin. COUNT 6 GUILTY.
Child G, three allegations of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby targeted the baby girl by overfeeding her with milk and pushing air down her feeding tube. COUNT 7 GUILTY, COUNT 8 GUILTY, COUNT 9 NOT GUILTY.
Child H, two allegations of attempted murder. Prosecutors said Letby sabotaged the care of the baby girl in some way which led to two profound oxygen desaturations. COUNT 10 NOT GUILTY, COUNT 11 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT.
Child I, allegation of murder. The prosecution said Letby killed the baby girl at the fourth attempt and had given her air and overfed her with milk. COUNT 12 GUILTY.
Child J, allegation of attempted murder. No specific form of harm was identified by the prosecution but they said Letby did something to cause the collapse of the baby girl. COUNT 13 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT.
Child K, allegation of attempted murder. The prosecution said Letby compromised the baby girl as she deliberately dislodged a breathing tube. COUNT 14 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT.
Child L, allegation of attempted murder. The Crown said the nurse poisoned the twin baby boy with insulin. COUNT 15 GUILTY.
Child M, allegation of attempted murder. Prosecutors said Letby injected air into the bloodstream of Child L’s twin brother. COUNT 16 GUILTY.
Child N, three allegations of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby inflicted trauma in the baby boy’s throat and also injected him with air in the bloodstream. COUNT 17 GUILTY, COUNT 18 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT, COUNT 19 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT.
Child O, allegation of murder. Prosecutors say Letby attacked the triplet boy by injecting him with air, overfeeding him with milk and inflicting trauma to his liver with “severe force”. COUNT 20 GUILTY.
Child P, allegation of murder. Prosecutors said the nurse targeted the triplet brother of Child O by overfeeding him with milk, injecting air and dislodging his breathing tube. COUNT 21 GUILTY.
Child Q, allegation of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby injected the baby boy with liquid, and possibly air, down his feeding tube. COUNT 22 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT.
Many have cast doubt over Letby’s convictions and others suggest she was targeted in a “witch hunt”.
Earlier this month, a panel of 14 neonatologists even went as far as to claim there is no hard medical evidence of the nurse’s crimes.
They concluded the criminal convictions were “unsafe”, claiming there was no “smoking gun” and that Letby was convicted based on circumstantial evidence.
Letby sceptics have clung to de Berk’s unusual case — claiming prosecutors used the same flawed methods to convict her.
And an application to the UK’s independent Criminal Cases Review Commission has been submitted.
Now Prof Gill has also cast doubt on the medical experts used to convict Letby.
He said: “I honestly think it’s big, but it’s going to take a long time.”
Letby and de Berk were both accused of murdering patients in over-stretched hospital units and became victims of gossip and “witch hunts”, said Prof Gill.
Referring to de Berk’s case, he said: “It’s incredibly similar [to Letby] . . . down to all kinds of little details, and the big picture. It’s a long and complex story, but the beginning is simple and it’s basically the same.
“An over-stressed unit in a children’s hospital where it turned out there had been management changes, policy changes in moving children from high intensive care to medium intensive care.”
Professor Richard Gill, the statistician who was part of the team that freed de Berk
Letby carried out the rampage while working at the Countess of Chester Hospital
AFPDe Berk is hugged by her daughter Fabienne after her acquittal[/caption]
He emphasised: “The thing to focus on here is changing hospital policy leading to very vulnerable patients dying suddenly in a place where they had not died before, where they usually didn’t die — where they were supposed to get better and go home.”
Alluding to Letby, Prof Gill added: “You may have heard that phrase before.”
He said the extra deaths on de Berk’s unit suddenly led to “gossiping about a nurse who seemed to be always there when they happened”.
Prof Gill said there was a “totally inexplicable spike in deaths” in what was a “very, very good hospital”.
He says this easily led to suspicions of a “killer nurse” — and de Berk found herself the prime suspect.
The trigger event was the death of a six-month-old baby, which led to a “witch hunt”, explained Prof Gill.
“It’s the same social dynamics, the same psychologies, the same reaction — a social system in stress and bad things happening and identifying what seems to be a very evil person causing it. This is what happens.”
Prof Gill thinks Letby was a victim of the same kind of witch hunt.
At her trial, prosecutors argued the collapses and deaths of the children were not “naturally occurring tragedies” and instead the gruesome work of “poisoner” Letby.
Her ‘rampage’ was finally uncovered after staff grew suspicious of the “significant rise” in the number of babies dying or suffering “catastrophic” collapses, the court heard. Letby was found to be the “common denominator” among the horrifying incidents.
Analysis of Letby’s shift patterns and how they coincided with incidents do not prove her guilt, says Prof Gill — with admin errors key to disproving the case against de Berk.
Dioxin level evidence used against de Berk was later found to be flawed, and some experts say similar about insulin and whether air was injected into victims in the Letby case.
How Lucia de Berk’s convictions were overturned… and how they compare to Letby’s case
Probabilities in de Berk’s case, such as a one in 342 million chance the deaths were down to luck, were considered flawed;
Stats in Letby’s case are said to have changed during the trials and didn’t delve deeply enough
De Berk was initially believed to be on shift during certain incidents but later this was found to wrong;
Letby’s shift patterns formed a key part of the prosecution – but could be flawed or coincidence
Doubts with De Berk over evidence of high digoxin levels in one child’s blood;
Similar doubts have been raised about Letby’s use of insulin with claims of evidence being invalid
Evidence of De Berk‘s opportunity to poison victims said to be flawed; similarly no witness evidence of Letby causing harm
Chain argument allows evidence from one incident to impact the next; both cases used it heavily, argues Prof Gill
The London panel of experts described the medical evidence as “unsafe”.
Prof Gill said: “I would say for Letby, in seven years of a police investigation, they did not find direct medical proof.”
He also explained how in de Berk’s case, the prosecution “homed in on statistics”. This revolved around the number of shifts she worked with or without any incidents.
‘A very evil person’
The statistician revealed: “The numbers changed, actually, as the trials progressed. Like the spreadsheet changed in the Letby case.”
Both Letby and de Berk were found to have written concerning notes, including in diaries, during the killings and subsequent investigations — but Dr Gill said this was used as character assassination and does not prove anything.
Like Letby, prosecutors also used writings in her diary which Prof Gill said were circumstantial and used in “an attempt to destroy her character”.
EnterpriseLetby was sentenced to 15 whole life orders after two trials across 2023 and 2024[/caption]
Derbyshire ConstabularyFootage released by police shows the moment Letby was arrested[/caption]
NewsflashNurse Daniela Poggiali, who Prof Gill also helped to free[/caption]
Prof Gill concedes de Berk’s diary was concerning, like the notes found in Letby’s bedroom admitting to murder and being “evil” — but not necessarily enough on their own to convict someone.
He said: “She, Lucia, wrote some odd things in a kind of florid language.
It’s incredibly similar [to Letby] . . . down to all kinds of little details, and the big picture. It’s a long and complex story, but the beginning is simple and it’s basically the same
Prof Gill
“She was actually practising to be a crime writer and she had Stephen King books on her bedside bookcase, which was also evidence of her ‘evil’ character — as well as some syringes found at her home.
“The list of evil things — circumstantial things — is kind of the same.”
Prof Gill said commentators argue the case should not be re-explored “in order to respect the parents” of the babies Letby is convicted of murdering.
‘Parents need closure’
But he insisted: “I think that in order to respect the parents, we have to do this.
“The parents need closure, and it’s actually overwhelmingly clear that the babies were killed by the incompetence of doctors.”
Meanwhile, de Berk — now 62 and a grandmother — has completely moved out of the public eye.
Prof Gill said: “For her, this episode in her life is now finished. She’s not angry with anybody.
“She is moving on and focusing on her family, her grandchildren, her garden, holidays with her husband.
“When she thinks of Lucy Letby, it causes her anguish. She’s not going there any more.”
Letby scribbled ‘I am evil. I did this’ on a note
In another, she said ‘I can’t do this anymore’
Letby also wrote ‘I wanted you to stand by me but you didn’t’ to a doctor colleague
PAThe notes were found in Letby’s bedroom[/caption]
PAShe also sent a sympathy card to a mum of a baby she allegedly murdered on the fourth attempt[/caption]
Derbyshire ConstabularyShe then lied to police in her interview back in 2018[/caption]
COMMENT: I covered Lucy Letby case from her first arrest…Here’s why I know she’s guilty
By Holly Christodoulou, Digital Court Editor
AT every step, Lucy Letby was a coward.
She was a coward when she refused to come back into court after the first guilty verdicts filtered in.
She was a coward when she hid in her cell instead of facing her victims’ families at sentencing.
And she was a coward when she targeted newborn babies who were barely bigger than her hand.
Now she is being a coward again and hiding again behind her lawyers.
Letby’s case was one of the most unusual I have ever worked on. It took nine months of harrowing evidence before the jury were finally sent out.
Then it was a further 22 days before the verdicts were reached.
But the case actually began years before when police released a statement confirming a woman had been arrested on suspicion of murdering babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
It didn’t take long to get Letby’s details – officers had raided a home that linked to the nurse and her Facebook had her work details.
The smoking gun really came though when a staff profile emerged. Holding up a tiny baby-gro in her scrubs, Letby spoke out how long she had worked at the hospital and what her role was.
The nurse said: “My role involves caring for a wide range of babies requiring various levels of support.
“Some are here for a few days, others for many months and I enjoy seeing them progress and supporting their families.”
Letby also revealed she was undergoing “extra training” to enhance her “knowledge and skills within the Intensive Care area”.
The “career-driven” nurse was even described as a “champion for children”.
But as we later found out, the killer hid under this “cover of trust” to “gaslight” everyone around her, including her own colleagues.
Usually in these cases, the suspect’s social media will be a treasure trove – posts about hating work, glamorous pictures, sharing a major dislike for children for example.
Letby’s was not. She was, as the police always described, beige.
When the case finally came to court, it was hard to predict what way the jury would go. Listening to reams of complicated medical evidence over such a long period of time may have ultimately been detrimental to convicting Letby.
As it was, the evidence wasn’t clear-cut.
We were told the collapses and deaths of the 13 babies were not “naturally-occurring tragedies” but instead the work of “poisoner” Letby.
Her reign of terror was finally uncovered after staff grew suspicious of the “significant rise” in the number of babies dying or suffering “catastrophic” collapses.
Letby was of course found to be the “common denominator” among the deaths and collapses.
But there was no billion-to-one DNA linking her to the killing spree. We heard Letby had been seen hunched over some of her victims before they fell ill but no CCTV showed this.
Instead, the jury could only rely on the medical evidence provided by the very experts who are now claiming their input was misinterpreted.
They are among a growing number of researchers and politicians calling for Letby’s convictions to be quashed due to a miscarriage of justice – much to the dismay of her victims’ families.
And yes, these experts are smart – they are more intelligent than me, than Letby, than the lawyers who prosecuted her.
But it’s like everyone has overlooked the fact there was other proof that was enough to convince me she was guilty.
Bubbling under the surface of her outwardly-calm demeanour was a twisted chaos that exploded from the nurse in the form of handwritten diary entries.
One that gave away her guilt read: “I am evil I did this”.
The note added: “I don’t deserve to live. I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them.
“I am a horrible person”.
Letby also screamed for help on Post-Its and begged “Kill me” as she revealed her inner turmoil.
As the death toll rose, the notes became more frenzied.
In one, Letby scrawled: “I can’t do this anymore. I can’t live like this.
“No one will ever understand or appreciate what it’s like.”
How is it so easy to suddenly overlook these cold hard facts? Letby was obsessed with the families of her victims – an innocent person does not stalk the grieving parents of a dead child on social media.
The jury certainly didn’t forget Letby’s confession when they made their decision. Neither did a second jury at her retrial for attempting kill another baby.
Nor did the top judges who TWICE refused when her team applied for permission to appeal against her convictions.
Yes Letby’s case could return to court but why does that mean the outcome would be any different?
The Criminal Cases Review Commission could return the case to the Court of Appeal but equally, they may not.
The Court of Appeal could refuse the request for a retrial. A retrial could take place but a jury might still convict her.
And then what? The families of her victims will be forced to listen again to the harrowing final details of their newborn babies’ lives before they were cruelly snuffed out by Letby.
A jury made their decision, Letby was not simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, she was a killer.
It is time we left her to rot.
Published: [#item_custom_pubDate]
