LUCY LETBY CASE FACES FRESH SCRUTINY AS EXPERTS CHALLENGE MEDICAL EVIDENCE BEHIND CONVICTIONS

The convictions of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby are facing renewed scrutiny as an expanding group of medical experts challenges parts of the scientific evidence presented at her trials — while her legal team seeks a possible fresh appeal.

Letby, 36, is serving 15 whole-life sentences after being convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016.

She continues to maintain her innocence.

The latest controversy centres on medical evidence used during the trials, particularly the interpretation of laboratory results involving two babies whom prosecutors said had been deliberately poisoned with insulin.

EXPERTS CHALLENGE PARTS OF THE MEDICAL CASE

A panel of international medical specialists convened to examine the case has argued that there was insufficient medical evidence to establish that the babies died or became seriously ill because of deliberate harm.

The panel’s conclusions have been presented to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) as part of Letby’s application for a possible further challenge to her convictions.

The CCRC is currently reviewing the material. Its role is not to decide whether Letby is innocent or guilty. Instead, it considers whether new evidence or arguments create a real possibility that a conviction would not be upheld if referred back to an appellate court.

One group of experts has specifically questioned the scientific basis for the insulin-related convictions.

However, the scientific debate is not one-sided.

In September, two experts who had previously contributed to Letby’s defence case withdrew from her legal team because they said they could not support some of the arguments being advanced on scientific grounds.

Chemical engineering expert Helen Shannon and bioengineering professor Geoff Chase said they continued to stand by their assessment that deliberate insulin poisoning was very unlikely in two cases, but objected to other arguments they considered inconsistent with available evidence and established physiology.

A NEW EMAIL ALSO RAISED QUESTIONS

Another recent development concerns Dr Ravi Jayaram, the consultant who was the only eyewitness to one of the incidents involving Baby K.

A 2017 email, reported by The Sun, appears to record that Letby herself called Jayaram after the baby’s oxygen levels fell.

That account differs from aspects of Jayaram’s later evidence to the jury, in which prosecutors portrayed the incident as evidence that Letby had failed to summon help while the baby’s condition deteriorated.

The discrepancy has attracted renewed attention, although its legal significance would ultimately have to be assessed through the proper appellate process.

WHAT ABOUT CLAIMS OF A “BURIED” HOSPITAL LOG?

Claims circulating online have suggested that a hospital document or statistical record proving a major error was deliberately concealed from the jury.

There is currently no reliable public evidence establishing that such a document was deliberately buried by the Crown Prosecution Service.

There are, however, genuine disputes about what evidence was available, how medical information was interpreted and whether all relevant material was properly considered during the original proceedings.

Those questions are among the matters being examined through Letby’s legal challenge and the CCRC process.

The distinction is important: evidence that was overlooked, disputed or interpreted differently is not automatically evidence that prosecutors deliberately concealed it.

THIRLWALL INQUIRY EXAMINED THE HOSPITAL’S FAILURES

The renewed debate comes shortly after the publication of the Thirlwall Inquiry report.

The independent inquiry examined what happened at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2018 and investigated how concerns about unexpected baby deaths and collapses were handled.

Its final report found serious failures by hospital management and concluded that some deaths and attacks could have been prevented had concerns been acted upon sooner.

The inquiry criticised the hospital’s leadership and safeguarding arrangements and made recommendations concerning neonatal care, staff training, insulin security and procedures for responding when healthcare workers are suspected of harming patients.

But the inquiry did not determine whether Letby was guilty or innocent.

Lady Justice Kathryn Thirlwall previously made clear that the inquiry was not intended to become another forum for challenging Letby’s criminal convictions.

CPS HAS ALSO FACED QUESTIONS

The Crown Prosecution Service has separately been involved in decisions concerning whether Letby should face additional charges relating to other babies.

In January 2026, prosecutors decided not to bring further criminal charges following a review of evidence supplied by Cheshire Constabulary.

Families subsequently requested reviews of those decisions under the Victims’ Right to Review scheme.

In August, the CPS announced that an independent prosecutor had completed that review and upheld the original decision not to bring six further attempted-murder charges.

That decision is separate from the CCRC’s examination of Letby’s existing convictions.

HER CONVICTIONS REMAIN IN FORCE

Despite the growing public debate, Letby’s convictions have not been overturned.

She was convicted at Manchester Crown Court in 2023 of seven murders and six attempted murders. Following a retrial in 2024, she was convicted of an additional attempted murder charge involving Baby K.

Her previous appeals were unsuccessful.

The CCRC’s current review therefore represents a potential legal route for new evidence to be examined, but it does not mean that a retrial or the overturning of her convictions has already been ordered.

For now, the central dispute remains the interpretation of the medical evidence and other material surrounding the original convictions.

As experts continue to disagree over parts of the scientific case, Letby’s legal team is seeking to persuade the CCRC that the new material is significant enough to justify further consideration by the courts.

The CCRC has stressed that its review will be impartial and evidence-based, and that only the courts can ultimately determine whether Letby’s convictions should stand.