The case against Lucy Letby lacked scientific evidence and is based on unverified hypotheses
Based upon published peer-reviewed research, and with the guidance, advice, and insights of other scientists, it is the view of Science on Trial that the scientific information put before the court by the expert witnesses is quite simply inaccurate, misleading, and in many instances false. The expert witnesses in this case are in all likelihood aware that the claims they have made lack the necessary scientific findings, and if they were to write these claims up and attempt to submit them for publication, their submission would be quickly rejected.
Although we may not be privy to each and every element presented during proceedings, as scientists we are able to identify the scientific standards and research relating specifically to the scientific elements included in the case. Additionally, we can identify the proper methodology that should be employed when conducting a scientific investigation based upon clinical medical notes. A significant part of this type of scientific consultation involves extensive reviews of patient medical records, along with clinical reports of infants and children with rare diseases. This work necessitates the adoption of rigorous scientific investigative principles and protocols, along with an understanding of problematic variables such as observer bias, in order to yield a report that can be acted upon by the clinical team. Unlike a forensic investigation, such approaches have serious consequences to the health of specific patients if the conclusions made are erroneous or are scientifically unsubstantiated. Even where such an investigation involves patients with the same underlying conditions, great care is taken to recognise the significant influence of non-genetic factors which may alter outcomes.
The claims made by the experts in this case were reviewed and the references upon which they relied to make such claims were sourced, analysed and cross referenced with the body of literature on the related topics. Based upon these factors, it is quite apparent that the quality of the scientific evidence is deficient and scientifically unfounded. For example, Dr Evans’ primary assertion is that some of the infants were harmed by air embolism, where air was deliberately injected into a vein, or through the stomach. Peculiarly, Dr Evans relies on a research paper from 1989 dealing with gas embolisms, which occur through the use of high ventilation pressures in preterm neonates. The cause of death due to gas embolism from high pressure ventilation differs substantially from the cause of death due to air embolism. It is never properly explained how the article Dr Evans references could ever have been used as a basis for describing air embolism using ambient air with 21% oxygen introduced through various tubes. The paper Dr Evans references describes air embolism caused by high pressure 100% oxygen being delivered to the lung with such force it caused an air leak in the lung. When demonstrating the symptoms of a given physiological state, it is necessary to demonstrate this state in multiple peer reviewed journal articles. There is no evidence supporting the finding of air embolism in any of the infants, as the expert witnesses rely on a journal article depicting gas embolism and not air embolism.