“WE NEED A RETRIAL” — DOCTOR WHO HELPED ACCUSE LUCY LETBY ADMITS HE IS NO LONGER CERTAIN DELIBERATE CRIMES WERE COMMITTED

DR JOHN GIBBS, ONE OF THE CONSULTANTS WHOSE EVIDENCE HELPED BUILD THE CASE AGAINST LETBY, SAYS NEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE MUST NOW BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

A remarkable new development has reopened debate around the conviction of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby, after a doctor who played a significant role in raising concerns about her has publicly acknowledged that he is no longer completely certain that deliberate harm took place.

Retired paediatrician Dr John Gibbs, one of the consultants whose evidence helped establish the prosecution’s case, has now said that a retrial could be the most appropriate course of action if the new evidence raises enough questions about the original convictions.

His comments represent a striking change in tone — but they do not mean that Letby’s convictions have been overturned.

Letby remains imprisoned after being convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016.

“WE NEED A RETRIAL”

Speaking to The Sun, Dr Gibbs said he now has a “very small concern” that there may not have been any deliberate harm.

He also said that if Letby were imprisoned for crimes she did not commit, that would be deeply troubling.

Gibbs went further by suggesting that a retrial could potentially be the most appropriate way for the competing evidence to be tested.

His comments are particularly significant because Gibbs was not a distant commentator who became involved years later.

He was working as a consultant paediatrician at the Countess of Chester Hospital during the period under investigation and was among the doctors who became concerned about the cluster of unexpected collapses and deaths.

 BUT GIBBS HAS NOT SIMPLY DECLARED LETBY INNOCENT

The new comments should not be interpreted as a definitive statement that Lucy Letby is innocent.

Gibbs has previously said that he continues to believe Letby was responsible for the deaths.

In September, after publication of the Thirlwall Inquiry report, he told the BBC that he had not changed his mind that Letby was guilty.

At the same time, he said the calibre of some of the experts now questioning aspects of the case made it important for the evidence to be examined by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

That distinction is important.

The debate is not a court finding that Letby has been cleared.

It is a growing dispute over whether the medical evidence presented at trial should be reassessed in light of new expert analysis.

THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE IS AT THE CENTRE OF THE CONTROVERSY

A major part of the current challenge concerns the medical explanations used to establish that babies had been deliberately harmed.

An international group of medical experts led by Canadian neonatologist Dr Shoo Lee has argued that the evidence presented at trial did not establish murder or deliberate poisoning in the cases reviewed.

The panel said some deaths and collapses could instead be explained by natural causes, underlying medical conditions or problems in neonatal care.

Those conclusions are being considered as part of Letby’s application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, or CCRC.

However, these are post-conviction expert opinions, not a new court judgment.

QUESTIONS OVER THE INSULIN CASES

Another major area of controversy involves two babies, known in court as Child F and Child L, whose cases involved allegations of insulin poisoning.

During Letby’s trial, evidence was presented that unusually high insulin levels indicated the babies had been deliberately poisoned.

Dr Gibbs himself testified during the original proceedings that doctors had not initially understood the significance of the test results.

He told the court that none of the doctors involved had realised at the time that the two babies had allegedly been poisoned with insulin.

New expert analysis has since challenged aspects of that interpretation.

A 2026 report submitted to the CCRC reportedly raises questions about the prosecution’s insulin evidence, including alternative explanations for the laboratory findings and whether the alleged poisoning theory fits the nurses’ shift patterns.

The full report itself has not been publicly released, so claims about its contents must be treated cautiously.

 A KEY PROSECUTION EXPERT ALSO FACES NEW SCRUTINY

Another major development concerns Professor Peter Hindmarsh, a prosecution expert who provided evidence relating to the insulin cases.

The Guardian reported that Hindmarsh was subject to investigations concerning his medical practice around the time he testified.

According to the report, his contract with University College London Hospitals had been terminated before his first appearance as a prosecution witness, while a General Medical Council investigation began on the same day he first gave evidence.

The police and Crown Prosecution Service said they were not informed of the investigation until December 2022.

The jury was not told about the investigations.

Letby’s legal team has said the information is relevant to its application to the CCRC.

It does not, by itself, establish that the evidence Hindmarsh gave was incorrect.

 WERE IMPORTANT RECORDS WITHHELD?

Another controversy concerns maternity records belonging to some of the babies involved in the case.

The BBC reported in July that maternity notes seized by Cheshire Police were not reviewed by the prosecution’s chief medical expert and were not disclosed to Letby’s defence before trial.

The records contained information about pregnancies, labour and births that could potentially be relevant to medical interpretations of the babies’ conditions.

The disclosure issue has become part of the wider questions now being examined by Letby’s legal team.

But again, there is currently no evidence that these records prove every official cause of death was “physically impossible.”

That claim goes beyond what the publicly available evidence establishes.

 THE THIRLWALL INQUIRY ADDS ANOTHER LAYER

The debate intensified after the publication of the Thirlwall Inquiry report in September 2026.

The inquiry found serious failures in management, safeguarding and communication at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

It concluded that hospital leaders failed to act appropriately when concerns about Letby emerged and said some deaths and injuries could have been prevented had action been taken sooner.

But the inquiry was not a retrial of Lucy Letby.

Lady Justice Kathryn Thirlwall specifically examined the hospital’s systems and response to concerns. Her report did not determine whether Letby was guilty or innocent.

That question remains a matter for the courts and the CCRC.

WHAT IS THE CCRC DOING?

Letby’s legal team submitted an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in February 2025.

The CCRC is an independent body that investigates potential miscarriages of justice.

It has received expert reports and submissions challenging aspects of the prosecution case.

If the commission believes there is a real possibility that the convictions should be reconsidered, it can refer a case back to the Court of Appeal.

But no decision has yet been announced that Letby’s convictions should be overturned.

WHAT ABOUT THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE?

Claims that the Crown Prosecution Service is “terrified” of releasing hidden laboratory data are not supported by the current public record.

In August 2026, the CPS confirmed that it had independently reviewed allegations concerning six additional infants and upheld its earlier decision that no further criminal charges should be brought against Letby in those cases.

The CPS said the review involved a substantial re-examination of the available evidence.

That does not settle the separate question of whether Letby’s existing convictions are safe.

That issue remains before the CCRC.

 A CASE THAT IS FAR FROM OVER

Lucy Letby’s convictions remain legally valid.

She continues to serve 15 whole-life orders after her two trials.

At the same time, the case is now facing an unusually intense post-conviction examination.

Medical experts have challenged aspects of the evidence.

Questions have emerged about disclosure of medical records.

A key prosecution expert’s professional history has come under scrutiny.

And now one of the doctors who helped raise the original concerns has publicly acknowledged that he has some doubt and believes a retrial could be appropriate.

For the families who lost their babies, the continuing debate is deeply painful.

For Letby and her legal team, however, the central question remains whether the evidence used to convict her can withstand the scrutiny of new medical and scientific analysis.

COULD THE CASE RETURN TO COURT?

That decision does not belong to Dr Gibbs, the CPS or the media.

It ultimately depends on the CCRC and the courts.

For now, there has been no new verdict.

But with new expert evidence continuing to emerge and a former key doctor openly calling for the possibility of a retrial, the Lucy Letby case remains one of Britain’s most intensely disputed criminal cases.

SOURCES

• The Sun — Dr John Gibbs says he is no longer completely certain deliberate crimes were committed and discusses a possible retrial.
• BBC News — Dr Gibbs’ comments following publication of the Thirlwall Inquiry report.
• The Guardian — Reporting on the undisclosed investigation involving prosecution expert Prof Peter Hindmarsh.