May 2026: Thirlwall Inquiry report delayed to at least September 2026 · six-baby inquests relisted to 2027 · CCRC review active · Shoo Lee Panel: no medical evidence of deliberate harm.
Dr Shoo Lee on the air-embolism claim — press conference, 3 Feb 2025
Dr Lee explains directly why the skin signs described at trial do not match the diagnostic criteria in his own 1989 paper. Chapters and subtitles included.
The Crown argued that skin discolouration described on several infants — patches of pink surrounded by pale, almost marbled, skin — was diagnostic of air embolism, meaning air deliberately injected into the bloodstream via an IV line. The prosecution's expert drew the diagnostic criteria directly from Lee & Tanswell's 1989 Archives of Disease in Childhood paper.
Dr Shoo Lee, the lead author of that 1989 paper, has publicly stated that the skin signs described at the Letby trial do not match those in his research. The skin pattern in his paper describes a specific, large-vessel obstruction picture — not the patchy mottling described at trial. The 14-member Panel he subsequently convened reviewed every alleged air-embolism count and found none met the diagnostic criteria. Independent neonatologists add that the mottling described is a non-specific sign of any major circulatory compromise, including sepsis and natural collapse in a premature infant.
"The skin discolouration described in the Letby trial does not match the findings in our 1989 paper. There is no medical evidence of air embolism in any of these cases." — Dr Shoo Lee, 3 February 2025
Dr Dewi Evans, the Crown's lead neonatal expert, presented photographs of post-mortem skin patterns and described them as classic findings of venous air embolism. He cited the Lee & Tanswell 1989 paper as the authoritative source for those criteria. The jury was told the skin signs themselves, combined with Letby's presence, were diagnostic.
The Panel, chaired by Dr Lee himself, concluded that the skin patterns described do not satisfy the diagnostic criteria of the 1989 paper. The paper described a specific pattern associated with large-vessel obstruction — migrating bright pink vessels against pallor — which was not what was described at trial. The Panel therefore finds no medical evidence of air embolism in any indicted case.