LUCY LETBY FACES FRESH LEGAL STORM AS TWO KEY EXPERTS WALK AWAY FROM DEFENCE CASE

TWO SCIENTISTS HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM FORMER NEONATAL NURSE LUCY LETBY’S DEFENCE TEAM — BUT THEY STILL STAND BY THEIR VIEW THAT TWO OF THE BABIES WERE VERY UNLIKELY TO HAVE BEEN POISONED.

Lucy Letby’s legal fight has entered a dramatic new phase after two prominent experts withdrew from her defence team, citing serious concerns about the scientific credibility of some arguments being advanced on her behalf.

The development comes as the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) continues examining a substantial body of new expert evidence challenging aspects of her convictions.

Letby remains imprisoned after being convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital. She continues to maintain her innocence.

TWO EXPERTS SUDDENLY STEP AWAY

Chemical engineering expert Helen Shannon and New Zealand bioengineering professor Geoff Chase produced a 100-page report questioning the evidence behind two insulin-poisoning convictions.

The pair have continued to stand by their assessment that it was “very unlikely” that the two babies were deliberately poisoned.

But they have now withdrawn from Letby’s defence team after raising objections to other arguments being presented in the case.

They said some of those arguments were inconsistent with available evidence, established science and physiology, describing what they saw as fundamental problems that could not be resolved.

THE DISPUTE IS ABOUT THE SCIENCE

The controversy does not mean Shannon and Chase have suddenly declared Letby guilty.

Instead, their position is more complicated.

They continue to question the prosecution evidence surrounding the two insulin cases, while distancing themselves from other scientific arguments being used by the wider defence team.

Letby’s barrister Mark McDonald has rejected the suggestion that the withdrawals undermine the overall case.

He says the defence has obtained evidence from international specialists in insulin, endocrinology and laboratory medicine that he believes raises fundamental questions about the original scientific evidence.

COULD SOME BABIES HAVE HAD NATURAL EXPLANATIONS?

This is at the heart of the wider scientific dispute surrounding Letby’s convictions.

A group of international medical experts supporting the defence has argued that some of the babies’ collapses and deaths could have resulted from natural causes, underlying medical conditions or shortcomings in neonatal care rather than deliberate harm.

However, those claims remain contested.

The recent Thirlwall Inquiry examined the hospital’s medical and management failures but was not established to determine whether Letby was wrongly convicted. Its report criticized serious failures in the hospital’s response to concerns about the neonatal unit.

THE THIRLWALL REPORT ADDS ANOTHER LAYER

The 2026 Thirlwall Inquiry found significant failures in leadership, safeguarding and the hospital’s response when concerns about Letby were raised.

The inquiry concluded that opportunities were missed to intervene earlier and that police should have been contacted sooner.

But the inquiry did not reopen the question of whether Letby committed the offences for which she was convicted.

That distinction is crucial: evidence about failures at the hospital is not, by itself, proof that Letby’s convictions were unsafe.

THE CCRC IS STILL EXAMINING THE CASE

The Criminal Cases Review Commission has confirmed that its review of Letby’s convictions is ongoing.

The commission has received multiple expert reports and submissions since Letby’s preliminary application was made in February 2025.

The CCRC has stressed that its role is not to decide whether Letby is innocent or guilty.

Instead, it must determine whether new evidence or legal arguments create a real possibility that a conviction would not be upheld — and, if so, whether the case should be referred back to the courts.

SIX MORE CASES WERE ALSO REVIEWED

There has been another important development outside the current expert dispute.

In August 2026, the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that an independent review had reconsidered potential offences involving six other babies.

After examining substantial evidence, the CPS upheld the earlier decision that no additional criminal charges should be brought against Letby in those cases.

That decision does not determine the outcome of the CCRC review of her existing convictions.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

For now, Letby’s convictions remain in place.

There has been no decision from the CCRC to overturn them, and no court has ruled that the new medical arguments establish her innocence.

But the continuing examination of the evidence means the legal battle is far from over.

With competing experts now publicly disagreeing over parts of the scientific case, the CCRC’s eventual decision could become one of the most closely watched developments in the long-running Letby saga.