In light of recent public discussion surrounding Operation Hummingbird, including criticism raised by politicians and commentators regarding the handling of the investigation, I would be grateful if the following questions could be put to DCS Hughes Cheshire Police.
The purpose of these questions is to seek clarity regarding investigative procedures, evidential standards, expert selection, media conduct, and wider issues of public accountability.
Initial Decision to Launch the Investigation
Following relatively brief discussions with Dr Stephen Brearey and Dr Ravi Jayaram, what evidence was considered sufficient to justify the launch of a major criminal investigation into alleged murders?
The initial decision to launch a major criminal investigation (Operation Hummingbird) in May 2017 was triggered by a meeting between Cheshire Police and consultants Dr Stephen Brearey and Dr Ravi Jayaram. While hospital management had previously resisted, the police deemed the evidence presented—primarily focused on an "unexplained and unexpected" surge in baby deaths and collapses—sufficient to warrant a formal investigation.The evidence presented by the consultants in 2017 included the following key elements:The "Common Link": The consultants presented data indicating that nearly all the suspicious neonatal deaths and collapses occurred on shifts worked by one nurse—Lucy Letby.A "Pattern of Emergencies": Following a shift change, the consultants observed that the cluster of unexplained emergencies moved from night shifts to day shifts, matching Letby's new rota.Specific Clinical Incidents: Dr Jayaram informed the police of an incident in February 2016 where he found Letby standing over a deteriorating, premature baby with a dislodged breathing tube, failing to take action.Failed Internal Investigations: The consultants informed police that previous reviews—including a thematic review of neonatal mortality conducted in February 2016—had failed to explain the rising mortality rates.Evidence of Poisoning: Dr Brearey later cited the discovery of a blood test from 2015 showing extremely high insulin levels, which he believed provided evidence of intentional poisoning.Shift in Management Position:Although doctors had been raising these concerns since at least June 2015, hospital management initially dismissed them, even forcing consultants to apologize to Letby in early 2017. The decision to involve police in May 2017 was driven by the consultants bypassing senior management and forcing an external review of the evidence.Note: Following the 2024 convictions, some medical experts and a defence-convened panel have disputed the medical evidence used in the trial, arguing the deaths could be attributed to natural causes, poor care, or infections.
At the time the investigation began, medical certificates and post-mortem findings reportedly recorded natural causes of death in the cases concerned. Given this, what evidential threshold was met that warranted treating the deaths as suspected homicides rather than first pursuing broader clinical review procedures?
Consultation With the Coroner
Before commencing the criminal investigation, did Cheshire Constabulary consult the coroner responsible for the cases?
If not, why was this standard avenue not pursued first, particularly given the existence of original medical and post-mortem conclusions?
Based on reports surrounding the Lucy Letby investigation, Cheshire Constabulary was accused of failing to consult the coroner and, according to a former coroner, failed to disclose key information to the coroner's office regarding suspicions about the deaths.Failure to Notify: In December 2024, Alan Moore, the former senior coroner for Cheshire, stated he was never told by hospital bosses of suspicions surrounding Lucy Letby when he was reviewing deaths that occurred in 2017.Coroner's Evidence: Mr. Moore stated that if he had been told of the concerns, he would have contacted the police immediately.Police Investigation Handling: Evidence indicated that Cheshire Police did not act on initial reports regarding the suspicious cases in 2018, leading to a "failure to read or act" on information provided at that time.Whistleblower Reports: Stephanie Davies, a senior coroner's officer in Cheshire, claimed she was suspended for raising concerns about the investigations.While the police and coroner often work together, in the specific context of the high-profile investigations into Lucy Letby, reports suggest there was a critical breakdown in communication between the hospital, police, and the coroner’s office
Use of Independent Pathologists and Medical Review Panels
Why were Home Office pathologists not commissioned at an earlier stage to independently review the original autopsy findings?
Medical cases of this complexity would ordinarily involve extensive examination of:
Full medical records
X-rays and imaging
Pathology and microbiology reports
Infection levels and infection-control procedures
Staffing pressures and ward conditions
Neonatal practices and clinical protocols
Why was the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health not asked to recommend or appoint a multidisciplinary independent review panel to assess all aspects of the cases before criminal conclusions were pursued?
Appointment of Dr Dewi Evans
Why was Dr Dewi Evans selected as the principal expert witness and reviewer for the investigation?
Publicly available information indicates that Dr Evans was not a practising neonatologist and did not possess extensive hands-on neonatal intensive care experience. He also later stated in court that he would not describe himself as an “expert,” despite acting professionally as an expert witness following retirement.
Given the seriousness and complexity of the allegations, why was reliance placed so heavily upon a single expert rather than a broader panel of recognised neonatal specialists?
Was this considered best investigative practice in a case involving highly specialised neonatal medicine?
In addition, before appointing Dr Evans, did Cheshire Constabulary carry out any background review into his publicly expressed views, published commentary, or previous conduct as an expert witness?
There are publicly available reports and online material alleging that Dr Evans previously expressed controversial views regarding the decriminalisation of certain sexual acts involving minors. Whether accurate or not, was this information known to the force at the time of his appointment, and if so, why was it not considered relevant when assessing his suitability to act as the lead expert in such a sensitive and high-profile criminal investigation?
https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-news-10th-february-2025
https://corruptionspotlight.co.uk/connecting-the-dots-lucy-letby-dewi-evans-bonnie-lewis/
If this information was not known at the time, what due diligence procedures were undertaken before appointing him?
Involvement of the “Gang of Four” Consultants
Why were the consultants involved in the original unit invited to participate in aspects of the investigation despite having been present during the events under investigation?
Given that they were members of the clinical environment in which the alleged incidents occurred, was consideration given to potential conflicts of interest or the need to treat all relevant parties as possible witnesses or suspects until evidence excluded them?
Consideration of Alternative Medical Explanations
Two central prosecution theories reportedly relied upon by Dr Evans included:
That cardiac air embolism could only have resulted from deliberate air injection.
That bleeding beneath the liver capsule in Baby O could only have resulted from traumatic assault.
A review of published medical literature and standard online medical resources appears to show that both conditions can arise from a range of non-criminal causes in neonates.
Did Cheshire Constabulary or its investigators independently review broader medical literature regarding neonatal air embolism and subcapsular hepatic haematoma?
If alternative explanations existed within established medical literature, why were these not given greater weight during the investigation?
Do you believe it is sound policing practice to treat disputed medical hypotheses as effectively confirmatory evidence in a criminal case?
Statistical Evidence and the Roster Chart
Did Cheshire Constabulary authorise or approve the use of the staffing roster chart presented during the case, which suggested that Lucy Letby’s presence during incidents was itself indicative of guilt?
Given subsequent criticism of this chart by statisticians and mathematicians, was independent statistical expertise ever sought regarding the reliability and presentation of such evidence?
Interpretation of the “Confession Note”
Who authorised the interpretation and presentation of the handwritten note widely referred to publicly as a “confession note”?
The note also contained statements such as “I have done nothing wrong” and references to accusations made against the author. Was consideration given to the possibility that the wording reflected distress, self-blame, or repetition of allegations being made during the investigation rather than a literal confession?
Were any parts of the note written during or shortly after police questioning?
Publication of Diary Entries
Did Cheshire Constabulary authorise or assist the publication of diary photographs interpreted by media outlets as marking alleged crimes with the letters “LO”?
Hospital workers and healthcare staff have stated that these markings appeared instead to read “LD,” commonly understo
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/freedom-talk-radio-uk--6720668/support.
https://buymeacoffee.com/freedomtalm Every Little Helps.
Live streaming live streaming
Real Stories You Won’t Hear Anywhere Else!
Simply Email Andy for a chat or add your story to my blog.
Freedom Talk Radio https://freedomtalkradioonline.com/
https://x.com/Freedomtalkrad
https://x.com/SpeechtvFree
Email Me
[email protected]Tims Sites https://shakespearescodex.com/
https://honeymikkaelson.com/timothywatson
USA