Thanks Steve, I think that’s a fair point but my role in this is not as a doctor, but as an investigative journalist for @PrivateEyeNews. My “lane” for the last 33 years has been exposing medical scandals, starting with the Bristol heart scandal in 1992. I had no expertise in paediatric cardiac surgery, but what I did have was excellent sources with that expertise. I have been writing about the Letby case only because very senior Level 3 neonatologists, with far more relevant and recent experience than anyone who gave evidence at the trial, contacted @PrivateEyeNews to argue there were far more plausible causes for death than murder. Some of them now have access to all the evidence, from the clinical notes, pathology reports and court transcripts, and I have had very detailed discussions with them. It is their conclusion that babies O and C died from causes other than murder, based on two very detailed 30,000 word reports with extensive cross references to the notes. I agree with them. What I don’t agree with is the fact that it’s taken 8 1/2 years after one of the deaths, and 9 1/2 years after the other for such detailed reports to be produced. I also don’t agree that they should remain secret, within the bowels of the criminal cases review commission, where they could remain for up to 20 years while it ponders whether to refer back to the appeal court. I think sound justice, like sound science, should welcome public scrutiny and can only be strengthened by the process. And I think the parents should have access to these reports too.

Thanks Steve, I think that’s a fair point but my role in this is not as a doctor, but as an investigative journalist for @PrivateEyeNews. My “lane” for the last 33 years has been exposing medical scandals, starting with the Bristol heart scandal in 1992. I had no expertise in paediatric cardiac surgery, but what I did have was excellent sources with that expertise. I have been writing about the Letby case only because very senior Level 3 neonatologists, with far more relevant and recent experience than anyone who gave evidence at the trial, contacted @PrivateEyeNews to argue there were far more plausible causes for death than murder. Some of them now have access to all the evidence, from the clinical notes, pathology reports and court transcripts, and I have had very detailed discussions with them. It is their conclusion that babies O and C died from causes other than murder, based on two very detailed 30,000 word reports with extensive cross references to the notes. I agree with them. What I don’t agree with is the fact that it’s taken 8 1/2 years after one of the deaths, and 9 1/2 years after the other for such detailed reports to be produced. I also don’t agree that they should remain secret, within the bowels of the criminal cases review commission, where they could remain for up to 20 years while it ponders whether to refer back to the appeal court. I think sound justice, like sound science, should welcome public scrutiny and can only be strengthened by the process. And I think the parents should have access to these reports too.