Skip to content

April 2026: Thirlwall Inquiry final report due after Easter · CCRC still reviewing 31+ independent expert reports · Shoo Lee Panel (Feb 2025): no medical evidence of deliberate harm.

Lucy Letby Facts
Medical evidence

Post-mortem findings — reviewed and reinterpreted

Last updated

Prosecution claim

In several cases, post-mortem findings were cited as supporting specific mechanisms of harm — liver injury, gastric over-distension, skin patterns consistent with air embolism.

Counter-evidence

The Panel's case-by-case review concludes that in every case, post-mortem findings are explicable without deliberate harm. Liver findings in the case of Child O, for example, are consistent with cardiopulmonary resuscitation effort — vigorous chest compressions routinely produce hepatic injury in neonates. Gastric findings are explicable by the routine use of CPAP and bag-mask ventilation. No finding unique to deliberate harm was identified.

No post-mortem finding in any indicted case is unique to, or even highly specific for, deliberate harm.

What the jury heard

Post-mortem findings were presented as corroborating the Crown's mechanism of harm, case by case.

What the Panel says

The Panel's line-by-line review concludes every finding is compatible with natural causes or standard resuscitation effort. CPR-related hepatic injury is well described in neonatal practice.

What independent experts add

  • Neonatal pathologists emphasise that CPR on a very small baby commonly produces findings that lay observers misread as trauma.
  • Gastric over-distension is routine with bag-mask ventilation and CPAP.

Further reading

Source: Shoo Lee Panel Report 2025; Panel-member commentary