ITV Broadcast of Neonatal Unit Shift Chart Raises Questions About Lucy Letby Case Timeline
The Lucy Letby case, one of the most harrowing criminal cases in recent British history, has taken another twist with the revelation that a brief, seven-second ITV broadcast aired a rough shift chart from the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Eagle-eyed viewers quickly noticed that the dates on this chart did not align with the prosecution’s timeline presented during Letby’s trial, where she was convicted of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder seven others between June 2015 and June 2016. The discrepancy, which has never been addressed in court, has sparked renewed debate about the integrity of the evidence used to secure her 15 whole-life sentences. This article explores the significance of the shift chart, the timeline mismatch, potential reasons for its omission from court discussions, and the broader implications for the case.
The Lucy Letby Case: A Recap
Lucy Letby, a 35-year-old former neonatal nurse from Hereford, was convicted in August 2023 of seven counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder following a 10-month trial at Manchester Crown Court. The prosecution argued that Letby deliberately harmed infants in the neonatal unit by injecting air or insulin into their bloodstreams, overfeeding them, or dislodging breathing tubes. Key evidence included her presence during all incidents, abnormal medical test results, and handwritten notes interpreted as confessions. The Thirlwall Inquiry, ongoing as of August 2025, continues to investigate systemic failures at the hospital that allowed Letby’s crimes to go undetected for over a year.
The ITV broadcast, aired as part of a news segment on the case, briefly displayed a rough shift chart detailing nursing assignments in the neonatal unit during the period of the crimes. While the chart was only visible for seven seconds, viewers with a keen eye noticed that the dates listed for certain shifts involving Letby appeared to contradict the prosecution’s timeline of events, particularly for the deaths and collapses of infants referred to as Baby A, Baby C, and Baby E.
The Shift Chart Discrepancy
The prosecution’s timeline, as outlined in court, detailed specific dates and times when Letby was allegedly responsible for harming infants. For example, Baby A, a twin boy, died on June 8, 2015, shortly after Letby became his designated nurse, with prosecutors alleging she injected air into his bloodstream. Similarly, Baby C’s death on June 14, 2015, and Baby E’s death on August 4, 2015, were attributed to Letby’s actions during her shifts. The shift chart shown on ITV, however, reportedly included dates that did not correspond to these events, suggesting either that Letby was not on duty during some incidents or that the timeline of her shifts was inaccurately represented in court.
For instance, posts on X and discussions in outlets like The Guardian have highlighted that the chart showed Letby scheduled for a shift on a date when no incident occurred, while a key incident involving Baby E was linked to a date when her presence was not recorded on the chart. These discrepancies, though fleetingly visible, have fueled speculation that the prosecution’s reliance on Letby’s consistent presence during collapses may have been overstated or misaligned with actual shift records.
Why Were the Dates Never Discussed in Court?
The fact that the shift chart’s discrepancies were never addressed in court raises several possibilities, each with significant implications for the case:
Oversight by the Prosecution and Defense: The prosecution’s case heavily relied on Letby’s staffing records to establish her presence during all suspicious incidents. If the shift chart contained errors or inconsistencies, it’s possible that both legal teams overlooked them due to the volume of evidence—hundreds of documents, medical records, and witness statements were presented over the trial’s duration. The defense, led by Ben Myers KC, may have missed an opportunity to challenge the timeline, focusing instead on disputing medical causation and Letby’s intent.
Incomplete or Inaccurate Records: Neonatal units, particularly understaffed ones like the Countess of Chester’s, often face chaotic scheduling. The Thirlwall Inquiry has revealed that the unit was under-resourced, with nurses frequently taking on extra shifts. The rough shift chart may have been a draft or informal document, not reflective of final assignments. If so, its discrepancies might have been deemed irrelevant or unreliable by legal teams, explaining its absence from court discussions.
Suppression of Conflicting Evidence: More controversially, some commentators on X and in The New York Times have suggested that evidence contradicting the prosecution’s narrative may have been downplayed to maintain a coherent case against Letby. The prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence, such as Letby’s presence and statistical anomalies, was already contentious. Introducing a conflicting shift chart could have weakened their argument, especially without definitive forensic evidence like fingerprints or CCTV footage.
ITV’s Editorial Decision: The brief airing of the chart suggests it may have been included inadvertently or as background context without thorough vetting. ITV News, a major source of coverage on the Letby case, has not publicly commented on the discrepancy, and it’s unclear whether the chart was obtained from court documents, hospital records, or another source. The lack of follow-up discussion may indicate that the chart was not considered significant by journalists or legal authorities at the time.
Broader Implications for the Case
The shift chart discrepancy adds to a growing list of concerns about the Letby case, particularly as new evidence and expert analyses emerge. The Thirlwall Inquiry has already uncovered systemic issues, including delayed responses to consultants’ concerns and a hospital culture that prioritized reputation over patient safety. A leaked audio from a June 2016 meeting, where a manager dismissed calls to remove Letby with “There is no evidence,” highlights the reluctance to act decisively. Similarly, recent revelations about insulin tests for Babies F and L—taken two days late and with a hidden second result—have raised doubts about the reliability of key medical evidence.
The shift chart issue specifically challenges the prosecution’s assertion that Letby was the common factor in all incidents. If she was not on duty during certain collapses, as the ITV chart suggests, alternative explanations—such as substandard care, equipment failures, or natural causes—gain traction. A panel of 14 experts, including neonatologist Dr. Shoo Lee, submitted a report to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in February 2025, arguing that there was “no medical evidence” of malfeasance in any of the 17 cases, citing issues like understaffing and hospital-acquired infections. The shift chart could bolster their claims, suggesting that the prosecution’s timeline was constructed to fit a narrative rather than reflect the full complexity of events.
Expert and Public Reactions
The public response to the ITV broadcast has been polarized. On X, some users have called the discrepancy a “smoking gun” that undermines Letby’s convictions, with hashtags like #FreeLucyLetby gaining traction. Others, including families of the victims, have condemned such speculation as disrespectful, with Lady Justice Thirlwall emphasizing the “enormous additional distress” caused to bereaved parents. The mother of Baby C, testifying at the inquiry, expressed betrayal over the hospital’s lack of transparency, learning of the investigation only through media reports.
Experts like Dr. Adel Ismail, a retired clinical biochemist, have criticized the case’s reliance on circumstantial evidence, including staffing records, which he argues were not subjected to rigorous forensic scrutiny. The shift chart’s discrepancies align with broader concerns about the prosecution’s use of statistical data, such as a staffing chart showing Letby’s presence during all collapses, which some statisticians have called misleading due to potential cherry-picking.
The Role of Media and the Thirlwall Inquiry
ITV’s airing of the shift chart, however brief, underscores the media’s role in shaping public perception of the case. While ITV News Granada has provided extensive coverage, including timelines and witness testimonies, the inadvertent broadcast of a conflicting document highlights the risks of presenting unverified material. The Thirlwall Inquiry, set to conclude in early 2026, is examining how the hospital handled staffing and incident reporting, which may shed light on the accuracy of shift records. However, the inquiry has not yet addressed the ITV chart specifically, and it remains unclear whether it will be investigated as part of the CCRC’s ongoing review of Letby’s convictions.
Conclusion
The seven-second glimpse of a neonatal unit shift chart on ITV has opened a new chapter in the Lucy Letby case, raising questions about the accuracy of the prosecution’s timeline and why these discrepancies were never discussed in court. Whether due to oversight, incomplete records, or deliberate omission, the mismatch fuels skepticism about the case’s reliance on circumstantial evidence, particularly Letby’s presence during incidents. As the Thirlwall Inquiry and CCRC review continue, this revelation underscores the need for transparency and rigor in handling complex medical and legal evidence. For the families of Letby’s victims, the ongoing scrutiny is a painful reminder of their loss, while for the justice system, it is a call to ensure convictions are built on unassailable foundations. The shift chart, fleeting though its appearance was, may yet prove to be a pivotal piece in unraveling one of the UK’s most controversial criminal cases.
Sources: ITV News Granada, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The New York Times, Thirlwall Inquiry testimonies
