Skip to content

July 2026: Government declines to widen the Thirlwall terms of reference (16 July) · new 100-page insulin report to the CCRC challenging the trial evidence (9 July) · Thirlwall report still expected no earlier than September · inquests relisted to 2027 · Shoo Lee Panel: no medical evidence of deliberate harm.

Lucy Letby Facts

Methodology

Source-reliability scale

Source labels help readers distinguish official records, expert reports, parliamentary material, mainstream reporting, commentary and unverified claims. A higher source level does not automatically mean a claim is correct; it means the source type is easier to verify and should generally carry more evidential weight.

  • 1Court/officialLevel 1Court or official record

    Judgments, sentencing remarks, CPS material, Court of Appeal rulings, CCRC statements, Thirlwall Inquiry transcripts and exhibits. Primary public-law record.

    Examples: Court of Appeal judgments, Trial sentencing remarks, CPS public statements, CCRC statutory communications, Thirlwall Inquiry transcripts and exhibits.

  • 2Expert/professionalLevel 2Expert report or professional body

    Named expert reports, position statements from professional bodies, peer-reviewed medical or statistical literature.

    Examples: Shoo Lee International Expert Panel report, Royal Statistical Society material, RCPCH review and guidance, Peer-reviewed medical journal articles.

  • 3ParliamentaryLevel 3Parliamentary record

    Hansard, written questions, formal debate contributions and other parliamentary material.

    Examples: Commons adjournment debates, House of Lords short debates, Hansard written questions, Select Committee minutes.

  • 4Mainstream newsLevel 4Mainstream reporting

    Established news outlets with editorial standards and correction policies.

    Examples: BBC, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The New Yorker, Private Eye M.D. column.

  • 5CommentaryLevel 5Commentary or analysis

    YouTube analyses, blogs, podcasts, opinion columns, campaign commentary. Useful for orientation but should be cross-checked against levels 1–4.

    Examples: YouTube analyses, Substack and blog posts, Podcast episodes, Opinion columns, Campaign commentary.

  • 6UnverifiedLevel 6Anonymous or unverified

    Anonymous claims, unattributed documents, unsourced social-media posts. Treat with caution unless corroborated by a higher-level source.

    Examples: Anonymous social-media posts, Unattributed leaked documents, Single-sourced rumour.

How we apply the scale

Wherever a major evidence card, document record, transcript record or person profile makes a factual claim, we attach the highest-applicable source-reliability level. Where a claim rests on multiple sources we typically attach the highest level present.

What the scale does NOT mean

  • A level-1 source is not automatically right. Courts make findings on the evidence put before them; subsequent expert evidence can challenge a finding without making the court’s record incorrect at the time it was made.
  • A level-5 source is not automatically wrong. Independent commentary has surfaced material that higher-tier sources later confirmed.
  • A level-6 (unverified) tag is not an accusation. It just means we have not yet seen corroboration at a higher level.

How we update levels

When new evidence appears — for example a Court of Appeal judgment, a CCRC statement of reasons, a published expert report, or a Thirlwall exhibit — we re-tag affected items and log the change in our changelog. If you think a tag is wrong, send us a correction.