This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Cheshire Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Hospitals Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

per the NYT [1] an independent committee of experts concluded that there was no evidence for any baby being murdered by Letby. I guess it should be added Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I see from the guidelines that it is recommended to minimize references in the lead of the article, it feels distracting here to not have some links out to additional information for readers. It is completely unsourced in the lead, and that's why I had added a reference to a Guardian article for readers to click out to. I see that ref was removed as "not worthy". If so, I think it'd be a service to readers to bring in some sources for the lead that are worthy. Killamator (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the recent Shoo Lee panel is in the article, as it should be, but I question whether it is worthy of being included in the lead? I removed the text there, but it has been re-added. This panel has no special significance. I'm not seeing evidence of lasting notability. I am happy to review in a few months time whether it does turn out to be of importance, but it seems premature to include it in the lead now just because it got a couple of headlines recently. Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Bondegezou for starting this thread, you raise an important point.

I feel that the mention of the Dr Shoo Lee panel should remain because it conforms to WP:LEAD and WP:BLP.

Currently, the article sits at around 8600 words with over a quarter (2300) dedicated to the §Safety of the convictions. This is quite unusual for articles on serial killers and exemplifies the panel's claims are notable and significant. This reflects current search trends and media reporting; many if not most of the first articles which appear in an UK search for "Lucy Letby" mention Lee. According to Google Trends, interest in Letby is currently at its all time highest because of the recent media reporting on the Lee panel. All of the most popular related topics and queries on Google Trends relate to themes discussed in §Safety of the convictions (e.g. "lucy letby new yorker" in reference to the May 13th 2024 article by Rachel Aviv).

I think this demonstrates the notability, relevance and significance of the Dr Lee panel and qualifies it for inclusion in the lead. It does not necessarily prematurely assume that Letby's conviction will be overturned. However, as you say, this matter can be reviewed objectively after some time and its notability/significance appraised. Mellangoose (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that is an argument for the lead to cover debate around the safety of the convictions, which it already does. That's not a reason for the Lee panel to be mentioned. There has not been sustained coverage of the Lee panel.

Also, the amount of this article covering the possible safety of the convictions is way too big. I've suggested trims to that before. Bondegezou (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the sentence reporting a February update, the Shoo Lee panel, because I agree that it is not leadworthy. It is WP:PROSELINE, the references added suggest that it is not a proper summary per WP:LEADCITE and are unnecessary in any case. The information is one opinion of many and should not be privileged per novelty value per WP:NOTNEWS. It is not, at this point, a significant opinion because it is only even in the public domain as a deliberate strategy owing to the possibility of new trials being started that would suppress reporting. It is not itself an appeal and it is not summary style. There is simply no case for adding this kind of PROSELINE to the lead. Mellangoose, the amount of space given to safety of convictions is interesting, but surely what it demonstrates is that we have spent way too many words on the details of that matter. I have always supported having mention of the safety of convictions, but this is not an article for advocacy on the issue. The matter must be dealt with in encyclopaedic summary style. Also, no: we should not have running reporting that we review in the future and pare back. There should be nothing in this article that is not intended for a final and finished article. We are writing an encyclopaedia article, not a news source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are writing an encyclopedia article, which is why I used a medical journal as a reference. Is there an issue with this journal? I believed it to be a reliable source. 1keyhole (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have a problem with the quality of the source, and that is not why I removed it, nor why I said I removed it. But note that although you cited the BMJ, you actually cited a news article in the BMJ, and so WP:PRIMARYNEWS pertains. And that speaks to the real issue with you placing this in the lead: it is news reporting. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Neither are citations needed in the lead when the lead summarises the main properly. And we have to avoid WP:PROSELINE (a sure sign that we are undertaking news reporting rather than writing an encyclopaedic summary). I linked to all these policies above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The report seems like the first organized, formal expert panel reviewing the evidence? Its recency seems besides the point. Killamator (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation saying it is "the first organized, formal expert panel reviewing the evidence"? That seems dubious and WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous group letter in August 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgdxq2l7kvo

But this one is delivering a report to the defense which has precipitated a petition to the CCRC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8y28ny1n0o

So it's a notable development in the case. Killamator (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Killamator that this is a noteworthy development worthy of inclusion in the lead.

To quote Dr Shoo Lee from this article:

"We did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care."

"In our opinion, the medical opinion, the medical evidence doesn't support murder in any of these babies."

This is very relevant because all murders for which Letby was convicted are attributed to air embolus. The expert witness, Dewi Evans, was a paediatrician not a neonatologist and did not have any medical experience of air embolus in neonatals. He therefore relied on Dr Shoo Lee's 1989 article in his diagnosis. The pathology Evans cited as evidence of air embolus was skin discolouration.

In the press conference, Dr Shoo Lee, who is an expert neonatologist, publicly stated that Evans was incorrect in his diagnosis. Dr Lee has published a paper concluding that skin discolouration is a symptom of arterial, not venous, air embolus.

I fail to see how this is not notable information or a reliable source. It is now widely published and not original research. The information is relevant and will certainly be timeless, given its notability and reliability. This can and should be included in such a way that is also not WP:PO. Mellangoose (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The key quote from that article is actually this one:

The lengthy and medically technical press conference was organised by Letby's legal team who had said the panel would present "significant new medical evidence".

Note that wording carefully "the panel would present..." This is a press conference highlighting evidence they intend to present in an appeal hearing. It is, at this point, untested by the courts, and by its nature it is unreviewed by others. A point I have already made: this news reporting is a strategy adopted by Letby's team. Because there is a threat to bring yet more cases against Letby, there is a risk that reporting restrictions will soon be applied once more to her case. Thus the legal team hosted this press conference to highlight their concerns. It is a risky strategy to prematurely release such information, but an understandable one in the circumstances. But no, it is not leadworthy. I need to stress this again, this is not an advocacy page. There is certainly a case that there were no murders at all (as it transpired with Lucia de Berk) but at this point we have a formal legal process that secured a conviction, but no such process that has tested the concerns and overturned the convictions. We can (and do) report the ongoing doubts. The specifics of such doubts do not belong in the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a position on her innocence or not, because I'm not a medical expert. I just believe it is a notable development. The fact that it comes from the defense, and the caveats associated with that, could be briefly noted. It is an event with material importance to the case, whether the claims of the report bear out or not. Killamator (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is news reporting. It will be notable when secondary sources cover it. Reporting a news conference is not an indication of notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many secondary sources covered it around the world. NYTimes, Associated Press, CBS, ABC, BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, Globe and Mail. This has brought the case worldwide attention Killamator (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARYNEWS Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why this analysis wouldn't be a secondary source? It provides context of the report, why it is a notable development in the history of case. It does not have primary original research. It also discusses why despite the attention brought by the Shoo Lee report (which is what might bring many users to the wikipedia in the first place), it still may be dismissed by the judges involved in appeals. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8y28ny1n0o Killamator (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

from that article:

The new report goes beyond the embolism question Dr Lee has spoken out on previously. BBC News has only seen a summary as a full copy has not been made publicly available.

It is not analysis, it is reporting of the press conference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DeFacto,

Firstly, in the spirit of true respect, thank you for taking the time to review and edit Wikipedia, making it a better place for everyone.

You have restored a version from a few days ago which has undone a number of my recent contributions. The reasons you state are:

• Undiscussed introduction of lists and tables giving disproportionate article space and undue weight to these things
• New introductions did not include explanatory edit summaries to help others understand the reasons for the changes

By themselves; neither of these constitute a violation of WP:E, although I do accept my edit summaries should have been better labelled. Note that you have also reverted my contributions that do have labelled edit summaries as well. Reverting edits based on the edit summaries is listed in WP:BADREVERT. In defence, I have been mainly adding content rather than modifying or deleting pre-existing content and these can be easily seen for anyone interested in the version history.

Here is a summary of my main contributions for reference:

• § Initial Investigations – added table of death statistics and convicted murder charges
• § Initial Investigations – 4 paragraphs about how the lead investigator and prosecution witness became involved in the case.
• § Evidence – an ordered list of the prosecution’s evidence directly from the sentencing remarks
• § Defence arguments – an ordered list of the grounds on which the defence unsuccessfully argued no case to answer and a paragraph on the judges response. I have also included current and up to date published sources, the majority of which no reflect a consensus against the verdict.
• § Verdicts and sentencing – I have transcribed and html formatted the table of charges from the sentencing remarks and added in information about the victims, also from the court document.
• § Victims – added new dedicated section on this, to be expanded upon. All other British serial killers have a victims section, and with Letby being convicted as one of the most prolific, I felt this was appropriate.
• § Concerns about the medical evidence – two paragraphs on Dr Shoo Lee’s research and press conference.
• §Dr Shoo Lee Investigation – new section added to reflect current up to date reporting and consensus on the topic, as this is a highly notable development. The content I have contributed contains 15 reputable citations and relates to topics and people already widely written about on Wikipedia.
• § References – a total of about 30 new sources

These all represent good faith contributions and are in the spirit of WP:BOLD (as is my reply to you here). All my additions are sourced and I have done my best to be as neutral as possible whilst reflecting current information with due weight. My contributions represent significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources; therefore it is WP:DUE.

Your reversion of my contributions is not in the spirit of WP:ROWN. Please also see the bullet points in WP:BADREVERT. Therefore I have undone your reversion.

In the spirit of WP:PARTR, I have started these threads on your and the Lucy Letby article talk pages. I hope we can discuss mine an others' contributions to help improve the article, rather than removing the good faith contributions of others. Mellangoose (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article manually but this has lost the contributions by @DominicRA and @Wombatjpw. I'm happy to re-add these manually if everyone is happy. Mellangoose (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should wait for a consensus here before restoring that disputed content, especially as this is a WP:BLP article (see WP:BLPRESTORE), and has been classified as a contentious topic. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @DeFacto, I did very carefully check before adding them that all of my contributions conform to WP:BLP core policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. It seems as though a few others have since reviewed the contributions and made modifications/updates of their own. I'm going to take a break from bold edits to allow other editors to continue reviewing and catch up. I'm committed to collaboratively resolving any problems; just please do not revert other editors' good faith (and WP:BLP conforming) contributions wholesale. Thanks again for your work editing wikipedia. Mellangoose (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Mellangoose.

I've undone some of your edits and felt I should expand on some of those decisions here.

I think the table of deaths at the CoCH was based on a conflation of 2015 and 2016 deaths at the hospital with deaths linked to the hospital. This can be seen from this document from the Thirlwall Inquiry. The problem with correcting just those two years on the table is that we don't (I think) have the info to know which definition of death was used for the data from the other years.

The list of the evidence used by the prosecution has a few problems:

• Point 1 is either outright wrong (we know she wasn't present at every death in the unit over that period) or is a way of simply saying she was present for every incident she was charged with (which is surely too obvious to be considered evidence). A better version might be that she was "present for a high number of deaths and incidents on the unit"?
• Point 2 states the prosecution's contested interpretation of evidence as fact
• Point 3 is an allegation, not evidence (the evidence would be the features of the documents that led to the allegation)
• Point 4, "trophies" and "hidden" are the prosecution's contested interpretations. Giving the number is also likely to mislead readers into thinking all ~200 related to infants in the trial, when only a small fraction did
• The final two points are probably ok (I might change "concluded with" to "included", though)

Your other edits are good I think. I've made some other smaller changes but I think those are probably self-explanatory. DominicRA (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I've just realised that The Telegraph have also printed that same deaths graph in an article that explicitly mentions the Thirlwall document. Perhaps that means they have ensured the same definition was used for the numbers for all the years? If we assume they have (though I'm a bit sceptical), then the table could come back as long as we change its title from 'at' to 'linked to'. DominicRA (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source, but there are numbers of deaths put out by the hospital in this FOI response. If, however, we are to have such a table, I would prefer it to be based on a secondary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review my contributions @DominicRA; personally, I agree with you. My guess is that it is very likely that over the next few years the article's purpose as a serial killer case will have to be rewritten as a miscarriage of justice case; however that is not known for certain yet by any means.

You are correct that I added the death stats from the Telegraph article; it seems to agree with @Sirfurboy's FOI request and your Thirwall Enquiry dispatch. The reason I included this and the prosecution's case verbatim is that regardless of whether it turns out Letby is guilty or innocent, these things are both relevant to her guilty verdict or potential miscarriage of justice. My original citation was the court document itself, however I feel in this case the use of this particular primary source conforms to WP:PRIMARYCARE. They should be stated, even if years down the line it becomes apparent that this is an example of a mistrial.

What do you think? Can we still include the prosecution's (possibly erroneous) arguments? Mellangoose (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we definitely should include the prosecution's arguments, but we have to be careful not to inadvertently state all their claims as fact. Per WP:NPOV, we should Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. We've already established by a Request for Comment that Letby's guilt is strongly conteseted, so we don't state that as fact. It only follows that we should apply the same logic to many of the prosecution's claims.

The problem with simply repeating the courts' descriptions of the evidence is that they do regard Letby's guilt as true and the prosecution's claims as fact. So we should reword their points to distinguish between what is true and the contested claims made by the prosecution. For instance, we should include the fact that Letby had confidential documents at her home, which is just a fact, but anything about them being "trophies" or "hidden" should be clearly described as the prosecution's interpretation. The same should be done for all the points; our wording should divide the evidence itself from anything contested that the prosecution said about it.

The problems with the deaths table are a little complicated. The Thrilwall doc shows that there are 3 distinct categories of death: those at the CoCH neonatal unit, those elsewhere at the CoCH, and those that deteriorated at CoCH but died in a different hospital. Your table included all three for the years 2015 and 2016, but was labelled 'deaths at the CoCH'. My issue with simply changing the name of the table to 'linked to' is that we don't have a breakdown of the other years to know which of the three categories of death are included/not included for them, and we should want the definition of death to be consistent across all the years. And finally, there were major policy changes (principally of admission criteria) between 2016 and 2017 at the unit, which, if not labelled, could render the inclusion of any years after 2016 misleading.

I hope that makes sense. With some reworking we should be able to bring back at least one of these two additions. DominicRA (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]