No CCTV, no fingerprints — conviction by inference only
The prosecution’s claim: Letby was the 'constant presence' at each collapse; the jury was invited to infer the physical act of harm from this pattern of presence.
Prosecution claim
Letby was the 'constant presence' at each collapse; the jury was invited to infer the physical act of harm from this pattern of presence.
Counter-evidence
There was no CCTV on the neonatal unit. No fingerprint or DNA evidence was recovered from any syringe, feeding bag or item of equipment implicated in the alleged attacks. No colleague, parent, or visiting clinician witnessed a single physical act of harm in any of the indicted cases. Every conviction rests on inference from patterns of medical deterioration and shift attendance. By contrast, the Panel's medical review concluded the deteriorations themselves were explicable without deliberate harm.
Key point: In every case, the alleged physical act is inferred from outcome — never directly witnessed, never forensically documented.
What the jury heard
The prosecution presented the shift-pattern chart and asked the jury to infer deliberate harm from presence. No physical act was captured on camera or observed directly by a third party.
What the Panel says
The Panel's medical review concludes that the deteriorations themselves do not require a deliberate-harm explanation.
What independent experts add
- The unit had no CCTV coverage.
- No fingerprints or DNA evidence linked Letby to any syringe, bag or line.
- Every conviction is inferential, built from attendance plus medical interpretation.