The international panel of 14 newborns and pediatrics experts on Tuesday is guilty of Lucy Le -Ruby, a British nurse who was convicted of killing seven babies at the hospital where she worked in 2023. Serious doubts about the evidence used to do.
At a dramatic press conference held in London, Dr. Shu Lee, a newborn in Canada, the chair of panel, killed one of the baby in her care in a large -scale independent review. Or he said he had no evidence of trying to kill him. 。
He also emphasized the serious misdemeanening of medical care in the death unit and the severe discovery of chronic failure in the management of neonatal conditions. He said that some of his death could be prevented.
“Our conclusion was that there was no medical evidence to support fraud, which causes injury in any of the 17 cases of trial,” said Lee. “In summary, no women, everyone, or murder was found.”
This review is important because it was carried out by the world’s most honorable newborns and pediatric experts.
Experts were allowed to evaluate all available medical records related to the baby, and they provided their evaluation. The panel emphasizes some of the baby’s serious status of babies, and in some cases, experts have found major errors in the treatment or care of infants.
A 35 -year -old Letobee was declared a lifetime order in 2023. In other words, after being convicted of killing seven babies and trying to kill seven other people in the newborn babies, she would spend the rest of her life in prison. Chester Hospital in northwestern UK in 2015 and 2016. She has always maintained her innocence.
Countess Chester Hospital said that when he was contacted for comments on Tuesday, the hospital was focusing on the ongoing police survey and public investigations related to the incident.
Dr. Lee has led an independent review of the baby’s case, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Japan, Sweden, and the United States.
He emphasized the independence of the panel, and when an expert began investigating, they revealed that the survey would be reported, whether the survey was preferable or disadvantageous.
He simply focused on the idea of ”the cause of fair death based on evidence.”
In this review, it was found that all babies were killed or harm to natural causes or medical errors.
Dr. Lee co -authored the academic paper issued in 1989, examining the air embolism in the baby’s blood flow, and pointed out that it shows signs of skin discoloration. The research was greatly dependent on the prosecutor’s chief expert witness, Di Evans, and by the chief expert in the case of the case. Dr. Evans claimed in court that some of the dead or worsened babies showed the same pattern to the skin.
After the trial, Dr. Lee discovered that his research was used to convicted Letobee. He agreed that Dr. Evans accidentally interpreted his discovery and provided evidence of a hearing that no one in the trial should be diagnosed with air embolism. Eventually, the appeal court determined that his evidence was not heard and argued in the original trial that Lee’s defense team should call Dr. Li.
The panel examined the case of each baby and emphasized some cases and panel survey results during briefing.
In the case of “Baby 1”, where the prosecutor injecting air into the vein of the baby, the panel determined that the cause of death was thrombosis due to existing problems.
Another child, which was identified as “Baby 9” by the panel, claimed that the prosecutor had died after Letobee had injecting air, but by an expert, “respiratory complications caused by chronic pulmonary disease. I found that I died. ” 。 The panel also discovered that the baby’s death could be prevented and explained many errors in treatment.
In the case of “Baby 11”, the prosecutor claimed that Mr. Letobee intentionally excluded the respiratory tube. However, experts said that there was no evidence to support the claim that the tube was removed. Instead, the first attempt to revive the baby by a consultant doctor is “trauma and insufficient director”, the wrong device is used, and the doctor is the device for mechanical ventilation. I didn’t understand the basics. ” I worked.
“I just didn’t know what the consultant was doing,” he summarized in the case.
“There is a very plausible reason for these babies to death,” said Dr. Nina Modi, a member of the Imperial College Rondon panel and a newborn professor.
“The baby gave birth in the wrong place, had a delay in diagnosis, inappropriate or absent treatment,” she said. “Obviously, there are personal factors we identified and individual factors we identified.”
Letobee lost two different attempts last year to appeal to her beliefs.
In December, Mark McDonald, Letoby’s lawyer, asked the appeal court to judge all her convictions because Dr. Evans, a prosecutor, changed his thoughts on how the three babies died. Was stated.
Dr. Evans has repeatedly stood on his evidence, and he told Times of London last weekend that “the very worried people have mistaken their facts.”
The cause of the baby’s death has previously been questioned by experts. In December, the defense team introduced evidence from Svilena Dmitrova, a two newborn physician, Dr. Neil Aiton and Dr. Svilena Dmitrova, which specializes in caring for premature babies. These experts concluded that the two babies who were guilty of the killing were not working hard and died for “identifiable medical reasons.”
The doctor who consulted with the baby’s medical record discovered that he died after the placenta problem at the end of his pregnancy. They concluded that another baby O had died as a result of resuscitation -related issues.
Lawyer McDonald’s applied to the Criminal Case Review Committee on Tuesday. This is responsible for investigating the claim of miscarriage of justice. He also pointed out that he had shared evidence with Letobee, and he refused to share the details of her mind, but he said, “I have hope, it But everything I can say. “
The Criminal Case Review Committee confirmed that he had received the request to examine the case, but it was unknown how long it would take.
“We know that there are many speculation and explanations surrounding Lucy Lebby’s case. Many of them are only from the parties with only partial views of evidence,” said the review institution. Man said. You need to pay attention to the event.
The committee said, “It’s a problem for the court,” said Spokesman, “it’s not to decide innocence or guilt.”
