Fresh disclosures have reopened questions surrounding one of the most disturbing criminal cases in modern Britain. Lucy Letby remains a convicted murderer, but evidence now entering the public domain is likely to intensify scrutiny of how those convictions were reached
Few criminal cases in recent British history have carried the emotional weight of that of Lucy Letby. The former neonatal nurse was convicted across two trials of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital. She is serving 15 whole-life orders, has repeatedly maintained her innocence, and attempts to overturn her convictions through the ordinary appeal process have failed. Those convictions remain in force.
What has changed is the amount of material now entering the public domain questioning aspects of the evidence upon which those convictions were secured. A new investigation involving The Sun and Channel 5 has brought several of those questions sharply back into focus. None of the material presently establishes Letby’s innocence, but some of it may be significant enough to warrant careful examination by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is already reviewing her case.
The email at the centre of the latest questions
Perhaps the most striking new disclosure concerns Baby K and the evidence of consultant paediatrician Dr Ravi Jayaram. At Letby’s trial, Dr Jayaram described entering the nursery and finding Letby beside Baby K while the infant’s oxygen saturation was falling, giving evidence that Letby had not called for assistance.
A May 2017 email written by Dr Jayaram, however, reportedly records that Letby had called him because Baby K’s oxygen levels had fallen. That appears difficult to reconcile with an important part of the later account presented at trial and will inevitably attract scrutiny.
The discrepancy does not establish that Letby was innocent of attempting to murder Baby K. Memories, contemporaneous records and later recollections can differ, and the significance of the email can only properly be assessed alongside the complete evidential record. Nevertheless, where a witness’s recollection forms an important part of a prosecution, an apparently conflicting earlier written account is plainly relevant to any subsequent examination of the safety of that conviction.
The medical evidence under renewed scrutiny
There are wider challenges to the medical evidence. Experts consulted since Letby’s convictions have disputed aspects of the prosecution case concerning the deaths and collapses, including theories about air embolism and the interpretation of clinical findings. Newly publicised expert criticism has questioned whether some findings attributed to deliberate injection of air could instead have other medical explanations. These arguments remain disputed and, importantly, have not been accepted by a court as demonstrating that Letby’s convictions are unsafe.
Questions have also continued over the cases in which Letby was convicted of attempting to murder babies using insulin. That debate has itself become more complicated. Two experts who had worked with Letby’s defence recently withdrew, saying that although they stood by their own assessment of the insulin evidence, they could not support some of the other scientific arguments being advanced on Letby’s behalf. Letby’s barrister, Mark McDonald, maintains that evidence from other international specialists fundamentally undermines important elements of the scientific case presented at trial.
That disagreement is significant because it prevents the emerging scientific debate from being portrayed as a simple contest between the original prosecution experts and a unanimous body of specialists now declaring the evidence wrong. There are substantial disagreements among experts themselves, and determining which conclusions can withstand forensic examination is precisely the kind of task that cannot safely be conducted through newspaper headlines alone.
What was happening inside the hospital?
Another strand of renewed scrutiny concerns conditions within the Countess of Chester neonatal unit itself. Accounts emerging since the trials have described pressures involving staffing, workloads, the treatment of particularly vulnerable babies and the wider operation of the unit. Those challenging the convictions argue that the clinical environment deserves greater consideration when examining whether apparently unexpected collapses necessarily represented deliberate harm.
Poor conditions inside a hospital do not establish that a convicted person is innocent, nor do institutional failures automatically provide an alternative explanation for every death or collapse considered during Letby’s trials. They are nevertheless relevant because one of the central questions raised by critics of the prosecution is whether natural deterioration, complications associated with extremely vulnerable infants and problems within the unit could in some instances have been interpreted as evidence of deliberate intervention.
The Thirlwall Inquiry does not decide guilt
The renewed controversy follows publication of the Thirlwall Inquiry report on 15 September. Established following Letby’s convictions, the inquiry examined events at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2018, the response of hospital management to concerns raised about Letby and the wider implications for patient safety within the NHS.
Thirlwall’s task, however, was not to retry Lucy Letby. The inquiry proceeded in the context of her existing criminal convictions and examined how the hospital responded to concerns, what went wrong within management and safeguarding systems, and what lessons should be learned. Its conclusions are therefore important to understanding the institutional story surrounding the case, but they cannot substitute for an appellate court considering new evidence about whether individual convictions remain safe.
The CCRC is already examining the case
The next potentially decisive stage lies with the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Letby’s representatives submitted a preliminary application in February 2025, followed by further expert reports, evidence and legal submissions. In February 2026 the CCRC publicly confirmed that its review of the convictions was under way.
The Commission does not decide whether Letby is innocent or guilty. Its role is to investigate possible miscarriages of justice and determine whether there is a real possibility that an appeal court would not uphold a conviction. If that statutory threshold is met, it can refer the relevant conviction or convictions back to the Court of Appeal, allowing judges to examine the new evidence alongside the material considered at trial.
This is an important distinction. A CCRC referral would not amount to an acquittal, just as a decision to investigate new evidence does not mean that the original prosecution has collapsed. It would mean that the independent body charged with identifying possible miscarriages of justice considered the new material sufficiently significant to justify returning the case to the courts.
A case that remains unresolved in the public mind
There is an understandable temptation with a case as extraordinary as this to divide into opposing camps. One treats the jury verdicts as ending every possible question; another interprets each newly disclosed discrepancy as proof that an innocent woman has been imprisoned. Neither adequately describes the position as it stands today.
Lucy Letby was convicted after lengthy criminal proceedings in which juries heard extensive evidence. Attempts to overturn those convictions have subsequently failed, and she remains imprisoned under whole-life orders. At the same time, expert opinion and documentary material have emerged which challenge aspects of the prosecution case. Some of those challenges are themselves contested, while others may warrant further investigation.
The central question is therefore not whether public opinion now considers Letby guilty or innocent, but whether the convictions remain safe in light of all the evidence now available. That is a question for the criminal justice system, requiring evidence to be tested rather than accepted because it supports one side of an increasingly polarised public argument.
The families of the babies must also remain at the centre of any responsible account of this case. They have endured investigations, two trials, appeals, an enormous public inquiry and years of intense media attention. If the case returns to the Court of Appeal, they face another painful chapter in a process that has already consumed much of their lives.
Yet the principle involved is fundamental. If credible new evidence emerges after somebody has been convicted, the justice system must be capable of examining it without fear of embarrassment or concern about the consequences of reopening an enormous case. Equally, allegations of a miscarriage of justice must withstand the same rigorous scrutiny demanded of the evidence that produced the convictions in the first place.
The CCRC now occupies that difficult territory. It may ultimately conclude that the new material does not undermine Letby’s convictions, or it may refer some or all of them back to the Court of Appeal for judicial reconsideration. Until that process is completed, Lucy Letby remains a convicted murderer, while serious questions continue to be raised about parts of the evidence used to convict her.
Justice requires both realities to be acknowledged, and neither to be prejudged.
