LUCY LETBY CASE: THREE VETERAN COURT REPORTERS BREAK THEIR SILENCE — AND REVISIT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PUBLIC MAY NEVER HAVE FULLY HEARD

After spending every day inside the courtroom during the ten-month trial, journalists Caroline Cheetham, Liz Hull and Kim Pilling have returned to one of Britain’s most divisive criminal cases. Their new podcast examines disputed claims, overlooked testimony and the evidence they believe has been lost in the online debate.

The case of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby continues to divide public opinion, years after her convictions shocked Britain. Now, three experienced court reporters are challenging what they describe as a growing narrative that key evidence was ignored or misrepresented.

In a special episode of The Trial, published on October 6, 2026, Daily Mail journalists Caroline Cheetham and Liz Hull were joined by Press Association court reporter Kim Pilling to revisit the evidence presented during Letby’s ten-month trial.

Their central argument is that much of the public debate has focused on selected details while leaving out significant parts of the prosecution’s case.

The discussion comes amid renewed scrutiny of the convictions, including questions raised by journalist Rachel Aviv’s lengthy investigation for The New Yorker and by commentators who believe the case deserves further examination.

The reporters say understanding the full trial record is essential before reaching conclusions about what happened.

THREE REPORTERS WHO WITNESSED THE TRIAL FIRSTHAND

Unlike commentators who came to the case after the verdicts, Cheetham, Hull and Pilling followed the proceedings in court.

They spent months listening to complex medical testimony, examining the prosecution’s arguments and reporting on the evidence presented to the jury.

Their new discussion revisits several disputed elements, including the prosecution’s shift-pattern chart, medical evidence concerning sudden infant collapses, hospital handover documents and testimony from nurse Ashleigh Hudson.

The reporters argue that when these details are taken out of their original context, the public can develop an incomplete understanding of the case.

However, their experience as court reporters is not a substitute for independent legal or scientific review. Their interpretation is one perspective on a case that continues to attract intense scrutiny.

THE TESTIMONY INVOLVING NURSE ASHLEIGH HUDSON

One of the most discussed moments revisited in the podcast concerns Baby I, an infant whose repeated collapses formed part of the prosecution’s case against Letby.

Nurse Ashleigh Hudson gave evidence about finding Letby in a dimly lit nursery with the baby. The circumstances surrounding the infant’s deterioration were discussed during the trial and have since become a focus of renewed public debate.

In the podcast, the reporters return to this testimony as an example of evidence they believe receives insufficient attention in some accounts questioning the verdicts.

The significance of any witness testimony, however, must be considered alongside the full account given in court, the other evidence and the arguments made by both prosecution and defence.

A single recollection, however striking, should not be treated in isolation as definitive proof of guilt or innocence.

THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE HOSPITAL DUTY CHART

Another major issue is the chart used by the prosecution to show Letby’s presence on duty during a series of unexplained collapses and deaths at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

Critics of the prosecution have questioned how the incidents were selected and whether other deaths or collapses involving babies outside Letby’s shifts were adequately considered.

During the podcast, Hull argued that the chart was compiled by first identifying incidents considered suspicious and then examining staff rotas to establish who was working.

She also said that incidents attributed to other identified medical causes were not included in the same group.

This is a key point of disagreement: how the incidents were selected, what the chart can demonstrate and whether it supports the conclusions drawn from it.

The chart was part of the prosecution’s case, but a duty rota alone cannot establish what happened to a baby. Its significance depends on the wider medical and circumstantial evidence presented to the jury.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE REMAINS AT THE CENTRE OF THE DEBATE

The podcast also revisits testimony from medical professionals about the babies’ sudden deteriorations, alongside evidence concerning insulin and alleged air embolisms.

The prosecution argued that the pattern of events and medical findings supported its case that the infants had been deliberately harmed.

Those who have questioned the convictions have raised concerns about the reliability of some medical interpretations and whether alternative explanations were sufficiently considered.

The reporters contend that parts of the prosecution’s medical case have been omitted or underplayed in more recent coverage.

These are consequential questions. Assessing them properly requires examining the original evidence, the experts’ reasoning and the competing interpretations, rather than relying solely on summaries or social-media posts.

THE HANDOVER NOTES AND OTHER EVIDENCE

The journalists also discuss confidential hospital handover sheets found at Letby’s home.

Some critics have questioned the significance attached to these documents, noting that only a portion related to the infants named in the charges.

The reporters revisit Letby’s explanation for retaining the papers and the role the documents played alongside other evidence in the prosecution’s case.

They also discuss other incidents and behaviour raised during the trial, arguing that the jury heard a broader account than some later summaries suggest.

The meaning of individual documents or actions cannot be established simply by labelling them suspicious. Their relevance must be assessed within the evidence as a whole.

WHY THE CASE CONTINUES TO DIVIDE THE PUBLIC

Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others while working as a neonatal nurse. She received a whole-life sentence and was also convicted of the attempted murder of Baby K at a retrial in 2024.

Since then, the case has remained the subject of documentaries, investigative journalism, expert debate and campaigns questioning the safety of the convictions.

The reporters argue that selective presentation of evidence has helped fuel claims of a miscarriage of justice. Others have called for further scrutiny of the medical evidence and the way the case was investigated and prosecuted.

The distinction matters: questioning a conviction is not itself proof that it was unsafe, just as the existence of a jury verdict does not make every subsequent question about the evidence illegitimate.

The convictions remain in place. Any legal challenge must be assessed through the appropriate legal process, not settled by a podcast, a viral post or a public vote.

WHAT COMES NEXT?

The new episode of The Trial offers listeners an opportunity to revisit the reporters’ account of what was presented in court and why they believe the wider prosecution case matters.

It does not, by itself, resolve every scientific or legal dispute surrounding the case.

For anyone following the story, the most useful next step is to distinguish established court findings from witness recollections, expert interpretations and claims made by journalists or campaigners.

The Letby case carries enormous consequences for the families of the babies, the healthcare professionals involved and public confidence in the justice system.

The questions surrounding it deserve serious examination — with careful attention to the evidence, a fair account of competing arguments and no assumption that the loudest online narrative must be the correct one.