Role in the case
Prof. Arthurs gave expert evidence at trial on post-mortem radiology (post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging and post-mortem computed tomography) for a number of indicted cases. His expert role was to interpret radiological findings against the prosecution’s theory of cause of death.
His specialty — perinatal and paediatric post-mortem imaging — is specifically relevant to differential diagnoses of air embolism, where intravascular gas patterns would be detectable on high-resolution imaging.
Post-conviction radiological re-readings
As part of the October 2025 CCRC application, independent paediatric radiologists have re-read the original imaging for several indicted cases. Their findings include:
- Post-mortem imaging in the indicted cases does not show the intravascular gas pattern that venous air embolism would produce at the volumes and locations the prosecution’s theory required.
- The differential-diagnosis framework for non-specific findings (gas from post-mortem decomposition, gas from resuscitation efforts, gas from natural gastrointestinal sources) was not fully set out at trial.
- The Royal College of Radiologists’ guidance on post-mortem imaging interpretation in neonates has standards that independent reviewers apply against the trial record.
- Several paediatric-radiology specialists have publicly disputed specific interpretations of the original trial imaging.
Trial radiology evidence: what was put to the jury
At trial Prof. Arthurs was called to interpret post-mortem radiological findings for a number of indicted cases. The core prosecution theory in several cases involved venous air embolism — the alleged deliberate injection of air into an intravenous line. Post-mortem imaging, if performed and interpreted correctly, is one of the direct evidential tests for this mechanism: intravascular gas at volumes consistent with lethal air embolism produces specific patterns on CT and MRI that are distinguishable from post-mortem decompositional gas and from gas introduced during resuscitation.
Prof. Arthurs’s evidence at trial addressed whether the imaging was consistent with the prosecution’s cause-of-death theories. His role was to read the available imaging against the prosecution hypothesis. The defence challenged his interpretations at trial, particularly on the question of whether non-specific findings could properly be attributed to deliberately introduced air rather than to natural post-mortem or resuscitation-associated processes.
Independent re-readings: the October 2025 CCRC application
The October 2025 CCRC application package includes independent re-readings of the post-mortem imaging for several indicted cases, commissioned from paediatric-radiology specialists who did not give evidence at trial. These re-readings are not directed at Prof. Arthurs personally; they engage the original imaging independently.
The structural question raised by the CCRC application’s radiology materials is methodological: in perinatal post-mortem imaging, intravascular gas must be assessed against the documented differential of post-mortem decompositional gas, gas introduced during resuscitation attempts, and natural gastrointestinal gas migration after death. The independent reviewers have applied the Royal College of Radiologists and British Society of Paediatric Radiology frameworks for neonatal post-mortem imaging interpretation, and their conclusions diverge from the prosecution’s radiological evidence on a number of case-specific questions. The CCRC’s assessment of those divergences is a live element of the review.
Prof. Arthurs’s UCL research profile is in perinatal and neonatal post-mortem imaging — a subspeciality he has substantially helped to develop. His academic work, including published studies on the use of whole-body MRI in perinatal autopsy, forms part of the methodological background against which both the trial evidence and the independent re-readings should be read.
Why this biography is on the site
This biography is a reference page. Prof. Arthurs’s professional standing is not in question; he is an internationally recognised paediatric radiologist. The review engages his trial-specific interpretations of the imaging, not his clinical competence or research standing. We identify him here to allow readers to navigate court transcripts, Panel materials, and the post-mortem imaging commentary.
Read alongside
- Evidence: radiographs
- Evidence: post-mortem findings
- Evidence: air embolism
- Evidence: forensic-pathology standard
- Dr Andreas Marnerides — reviewing pathologist
- Dr Shoo Lee — Panel convenor
- Transcript: Arthurs testimony (reference summary)
Source
Trial transcripts (2022-2023 R v Letby); Chester Standard contemporaneous coverage; Royal College of Radiologists / British Society of Paediatric Radiology professional listings; Great Ormond Street Hospital and University College London faculty profiles; October 2025 CCRC application independent-radiology re-readings.