Context
In February 2025 the Shoo Lee International Expert Panel published its summary report on the case-by-case medical review of the Letby indictment. In June 2025 the Panel published a follow-on report covering an additional ten cases — including Child K, the single retrial-conviction case. The follow-on report reached the same conclusions as the original.
The additional cases reviewed
The Additional 10 Cases report covers cases that were either not indicted or were charged on counts on which the jury did not reach a verdict, plus the Child K retrial case. The Panel’s remit was the same as for the original report: a case-by-case medical review applying modern differential-diagnosis methodology to each clinical picture.
The headline finding
The Panel’s conclusion on the expanded case set is consistent with the February 2025 report: in every case reviewed, the clinical deterioration is explicable by natural causes or by identifiable sub-optimal clinical care. No medical evidence of deliberate harm was identified.
Specific conclusions on Child K
The report specifically addresses the Child K retrial-conviction case. The Panel’s reading is that ET-tube dislodgement at 25 weeks’ gestation is a foreseeable neonatal event, that Child K’s specific clinical picture included multiple independent risk factors, and that the subsequent deterioration is attributable to the underlying vulnerability of a 25-week baby rather than to any requirement that deliberate interference be posited.
Specific conclusions on NEC-pattern cases
Several of the additional cases involve clinical pictures dominated by abdominal signs. The Panel’s review identifies evolving necrotising enterocolitis as a plausible or likely diagnosis in multiple instances. NEC is one of the leading causes of neonatal death and its radiographic and clinical signs overlap with what was prosecuted as “air in stomach” deliberate tampering.
Why this expansion matters
The original February 2025 report could be read by a sceptical observer as applying to only the indicted cases, with the non-indicted and failed-jury-verdict cases possibly reading differently. The Additional 10 Cases report closes that gap. Across the full range of cases the Panel has reviewed — indicted, non-indicted and acquitted — the clinical picture is consistent. That consistency weakens the argument that the Panel has picked the cases that suit its conclusions.
Read alongside
Panel press conference (3 Feb 2025), Child K ET-tube detail, Evidence: NEC natural pathology, CCRC review timeline.