EXPERT SAYS LUCY LETBY’S INFAMOUS “CONFESSION” NOTE SHOULD NOT BE READ AS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT
EXPERT SAYS LUCY LETBY’S INFAMOUS “CONFESSION” NOTE SHOULD NOT BE READ AS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT
A leading expert on false confessions has challenged one of the most striking pieces of evidence used against former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby, arguing that her infamous handwritten notes should not be interpreted as a literal confession to murder.
Professor Gisli Gudjonsson, an internationally recognised forensic psychologist who has spent decades studying false confessions, suggestibility and police interrogation, has examined the writings and concluded that they should be considered in their entirety rather than treating individual phrases as admissions of criminal responsibility.
The comments come as Letby’s convictions continue to face scrutiny from her legal team and some medical and legal experts, while the Criminal Cases Review Commission considers her application for a possible further appeal.
THE NOTE THAT BECAME CENTRAL TO THE CASE
The handwritten notes were discovered by police during searches of Letby’s home.
Among the most frequently cited phrases were:
“I am evil I did this.”
Another note included the words:
“I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them and I am a horrible evil person.”
Prosecutors presented the writings to the jury during Letby’s trial as important evidence supporting their case that she had deliberately harmed babies while working at the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital.
But Professor Gudjonsson says the notes should not simply be read as straightforward admissions of murder.
He told The Sun that it was important to examine the whole note and its surrounding context, rather than selecting individual sentences or phrases.
“IT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS A CONFESSION TO MURDER”
Professor Gudjonsson said:
“It should not be taken as a confession to murder.”
He also said he was “in no doubt” that the note should not be taken and read literally as a confession.
According to his assessment, the writings contain a mixture of apparently incriminating statements and other expressions that point toward emotional distress, fear and self-blame.
The expert’s position is significant because false-confession research examines situations in which people can make apparently incriminating statements without those statements necessarily representing a factual admission of a crime.
Gudjonsson has spent much of his career researching precisely those psychological processes.
THE NOTES ALSO CONTAINED CONTRADICTORY WORDS
The writings did not consist solely of statements such as “I am evil I did this.”
Other sections included words and phrases expressing fear, panic, hatred and confusion.
They also included statements such as “I haven’t done anything wrong” and references to being “slandered.”
Professor Gudjonsson’s argument is that these elements should be considered together.
In his view, isolating the most shocking phrases risks giving a misleading impression of what the notes represented psychologically.
WHAT HAPPENED AT LETBY’S TRIAL?
Letby was convicted at Manchester Crown Court in 2023 of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others between June 2015 and June 2016.
She was subsequently convicted of another attempted murder charge in a second trial, bringing the total to seven murder convictions and seven attempted-murder convictions.
She received multiple whole-life orders and remains in prison.
Letby has consistently denied murdering or harming the babies.
The prosecution case alleged that she deliberately attacked vulnerable newborns through methods including injecting air or insulin and interfering with their feeding.
The handwritten notes were among the evidence presented during the original proceedings.
The convictions remain in force.
NEW QUESTIONS AROUND THE CASE
The debate over the notes comes at a time when Letby’s case is receiving renewed attention.
In September 2026, the Thirlwall Inquiry published its findings into what happened at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
The inquiry criticised serious failures in management, safeguarding and communication and concluded that the hospital should have acted more quickly after concerns were raised about Letby’s involvement with babies who became seriously ill or died.
However, the inquiry was not established to decide whether Letby was guilty or innocent.
Lady Justice Kathryn Thirlwall explicitly limited the inquiry to examining how the hospital and wider health system responded to the events.
THE CONVICTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN OVERTURNED
The latest expert assessment does not itself change Letby’s legal position.
Her convictions remain valid, and Professor Gudjonsson’s interpretation of the handwritten notes is an expert opinion, not a judicial ruling.
At the same time, Letby’s legal team continues to challenge aspects of the evidence.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is considering an application concerning her convictions. If the commission refers the case back to the Court of Appeal, the court would then decide whether there are grounds for further legal action.
That process has not resulted in the convictions being overturned.
OTHER EXPERTS HAVE ALSO RAISED QUESTIONS
The debate is broader than the handwritten notes.
Recent reporting has highlighted disagreements among experts over some of the scientific and medical evidence surrounding the case.
The Guardian reported in September that two scientists had withdrawn from Letby’s defence team because of concerns about the scientific credibility of some arguments being advanced in challenges to her convictions.
That disagreement illustrates how contested the interpretation of some evidence remains.
There is therefore a clear distinction between questions being raised about individual pieces of evidence and a legal finding that Letby was wrongly convicted.
A CASE THAT REMAINS UNDER SCRUTINY
More than three years after Letby’s original conviction, the case remains the subject of intense public and legal debate.
Her handwritten notes continue to attract particular attention because of the extraordinary language they contain.
Professor Gudjonsson’s assessment offers a different interpretation: rather than treating the words as a straightforward confession, he believes they should be understood within the wider psychological and emotional context in which they were written.
For now, however, the legal position remains unchanged.
Lucy Letby remains convicted and imprisoned, while her legal team continues to seek further review of the case.
The question of how the handwritten notes should be interpreted is now part of a much wider debate over the evidence used to secure those convictions.
