BOMBSHELL IN THE LUCY LETBY CASE: DOCTOR WHO HELPED CONVICT HER NOW ADMITS HE IS “NOT CERTAIN” SHE KILLED THE BABIES

Retired paediatrician Dr John Gibbs, whose concerns about deaths at a British hospital helped trigger the investigation into nurse Lucy Letby, has publicly questioned whether deliberate crimes were committed at all. He says a retrial could be the most appropriate way forward — but Letby’s convictions remain in place.

A major development has reignited one of Britain’s most controversial criminal cases after a doctor whose evidence helped secure Lucy Letby’s convictions admitted that he is no longer certain she was responsible for the deaths and collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

Dr John Gibbs, a retired consultant paediatrician who worked at the hospital during the period under investigation, has called for renewed scrutiny of the case, saying a retrial could be appropriate in light of questions raised by more recent medical analysis.

His comments have attracted widespread attention because Gibbs was among the senior doctors whose concerns about the neonatal unit contributed to the police investigation that ultimately led to Letby’s prosecution.

In an interview with The Sun published in September 2026, Gibbs acknowledged that he could no longer say with certainty that Letby had committed the crimes for which she was convicted.

He also raised the possibility that the babies’ deaths and medical collapses might not have resulted from deliberate harm.

“If it wasn’t Letby, do I think someone else was harming them? No, I don’t,” he told the newspaper, adding that he had “a very small concern there may not have been any deliberate harm done.”

His remarks have intensified an already fierce debate about the evidence used in the case, the role of medical experts and whether the convictions should undergo further scrutiny.

THE DOCTOR WHO HELPED RAISE THE ALARM

Gibbs was working at the Countess of Chester Hospital in north-west England when a series of unexpected collapses and deaths occurred in its neonatal unit between 2015 and 2016.

The babies were premature or medically vulnerable, and their sudden deteriorations prompted concern among clinicians.

Gibbs and other consultants became suspicious that the incidents might be connected. Their concerns were eventually escalated to the authorities, leading to a police investigation into Letby, a neonatal nurse who had worked on the unit.

Letby was subsequently charged and tried for the murders and attempted murders of babies in her care.

Prosecutors argued that she had deliberately harmed infants through a variety of methods, including injecting air into their bloodstreams and administering insulin in two cases.

The prosecution’s case relied on medical evidence, hospital records, witness testimony and other material presented to the jury.

Letby denied the allegations, but she was convicted of seven murders and eight counts of attempted murder across trials in 2023 and 2024. She received whole-life prison sentences and remains imprisoned.

Gibbs’s latest comments have now drawn renewed attention to the distinction between the doctors’ original suspicions, the medical evidence presented at trial and the questions that have emerged since the convictions.

“NO”: HIS STUNNING ADMISSION ABOUT LETBY’S GUILT

Asked directly by The Sun whether he remained certain that Letby had killed the babies, Gibbs reportedly answered: “No.”

He said that if Letby had not been responsible, he did not believe another person was deliberately harming the infants either.

The retired doctor also said a retrial could be “the most appropriate thing for everyone”.

He acknowledged the distress that continued doubts could cause the families of the babies involved. However, he argued that their understandable pain should not prevent serious new evidence from being examined.

“What really matters is why so many babies collapsed on the neonatal unit in Chester in 2015 and 2016,” he said, according to the newspaper.

Gibbs also recognised that some of the arguments advanced by experts who challenge the convictions have merit, while making clear that he disagrees with aspects of several of their opinions.

His position is therefore more nuanced than a complete withdrawal of every concern he expressed during the original investigation. He has publicly acknowledged uncertainty, but he has not established that Letby was wrongly convicted.

Nevertheless, hearing such doubts from a doctor whose concerns helped initiate the investigation has added another significant dimension to the public debate.

MEDICAL EXPERTS HAVE CHALLENGED THE EVIDENCE

The controversy surrounding Letby’s convictions has grown as independent medical specialists have questioned aspects of the prosecution’s interpretation of the babies’ collapses and deaths.

In February 2025, a group of international medical experts led by retired Canadian neonatologist Dr Shoo Lee presented an analysis arguing that the cases could be explained by natural causes or problems with medical care, rather than deliberate harm.

The experts questioned the reliability of certain medical interpretations and highlighted concerns about the quality of care and the circumstances surrounding some of the incidents.

Their conclusions have been cited by Letby’s supporters and legal representatives as grounds for further investigation.

However, those conclusions have also been disputed, and the presentation by the independent experts did not itself overturn any conviction.

The case involves complicated medical evidence, and different specialists have reached different conclusions about how the babies deteriorated.

For that reason, the central question is not simply whether some doctors now express doubts. It is whether new evidence or arguments meet the legal requirements for a court to reconsider the verdicts.

THE THIRLWALL INQUIRY REVEALED SERIOUS HOSPITAL FAILURES

The latest developments have also come amid continuing scrutiny of the hospital’s management and safeguarding procedures.

In September 2026, the Thirlwall Inquiry published its final report examining the circumstances surrounding the deaths and collapses of babies at the hospital and the way concerns about Letby were handled.

The inquiry identified serious failures in hospital management, governance and safeguarding.

Its findings raised questions about why concerns were not acted upon sooner and why the hospital’s leadership and clinicians failed to respond effectively when suspicions emerged.

The report highlighted the need for suspected deliberate harm to be investigated and appropriate safeguarding measures to be taken without waiting for absolute proof of guilt.

These findings are important to understanding the wider institutional failures surrounding the case.

However, the inquiry was not a criminal appeal and did not overturn Letby’s convictions. Its examination of hospital failures must be distinguished from the separate legal question of whether the jury’s verdicts were safe.

COULD LUCY LETBY FACE A RETRIAL?

Gibbs’s comments have renewed calls for the case to receive further scrutiny, but a retrial is not automatic.

Letby’s legal team has been pursuing a review of her convictions through the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the independent body responsible for investigating potential miscarriages of justice.

The commission can refer a case back to an appeal court if it concludes that there is a real possibility the conviction would not be upheld.

The process involves reviewing extensive evidence and assessing whether new information or legal arguments justify a further appeal.

Letby’s convictions have previously survived appeals, and they remain legally valid.

The Crown Prosecution Service has also stated that it would not bring further charges against Letby in relation to additional suspected offences reviewed by investigators. That decision concerned potential additional charges and did not overturn the convictions for which she is already serving her sentences.

Any future legal development would depend on the relevant review process and the decisions of the courts.

For now, Gibbs’s call for a retrial represents his expressed view, not a judicial decision that a new trial must take place.

THE FAMILIES AT THE CENTRE OF THE CASE

Behind the legal arguments are the families whose babies died or suffered serious medical emergencies.

The case has caused profound grief, and renewed public debate has brought further attention to the experiences of parents who entrusted their children to the hospital’s care.

Gibbs acknowledged that questioning Letby’s guilt could be deeply distressing for those families.

At the same time, he argued that the possibility of a wrongful conviction must be examined if compelling new evidence emerges.

That tension lies at the heart of the case: the need to respect the suffering of the families while ensuring that the criminal justice system remains open to credible evidence that could change the understanding of what happened.

Any further review would need to examine the evidence carefully, rather than treating either the original verdict or the newer criticisms as a substitute for independent legal assessment.

A CASE THAT REMAINS FAR FROM RESOLVED IN THE PUBLIC DEBATE

Lucy Letby’s convictions remain in force, but the debate over the medical evidence and the circumstances of the hospital’s failures continues.

Gibbs’s admission that he is no longer certain of her guilt is significant because he was one of the doctors involved in raising the original concerns. Yet his comments do not, by themselves, prove that the convictions were unsafe or that no crimes occurred.

The next decisive steps, if any, will depend on the formal review of the case and whether new evidence meets the legal threshold for further proceedings.

For now, one of Britain’s most closely watched criminal cases remains the subject of sharply conflicting interpretations.

A doctor who once helped raise the alarm has now admitted that he is no longer certain what happened. Whether his doubts, alongside the wider challenges to the medical evidence, will lead to further court proceedings remains to be seen.

Sources: The Sun; BBC News; Associated Press; Criminal Cases Review Commission; Cheshire Constabulary.