Why the Lucy Letby Case Must Be Revisited

The justice system is not weakened by revisiting cases — it is strengthened by it. When serious, evidence-based concerns are raised by leading professionals across multiple disciplines, ignoring them does not protect justice; it risks undermining it.

The conviction of Lucy Letby has reached a point where credible doubt can no longer be dismissed as fringe opinion or emotional reaction. This is not about denying tragedy or diminishing loss. It is about whether the conviction itself is safe.

The Notes That Were Branded a “Confession”

One of the most powerful elements presented to the jury was a set of handwritten notes, repeatedly described as a confession. Those notes played a central emotional role in shaping public perception.

What is far less well known is that the country’s most senior expert on confessions has since examined those notes in detail. His assessment was comprehensive. He reviewed the notes themselves, analysed Lucy Letby’s psychological and psychiatric reports, and assessed her in person.

His professional conclusion was unequivocal: the notes did not amount to a confession.

Instead, they were consistent with distress, self-reproach, and mental turmoil — reactions commonly seen in healthcare professionals working under extreme pressure and exposure to repeated adverse outcomes. This expert opinion directly contradicts how the notes were framed to the jury.

What the Medical Evidence Actually Shows

Even more troubling are the findings from international medical experts.

Fourteen highly experienced specialists from around the world independently reviewed every single medical case file connected to the alleged incidents. Their conclusion was striking: they found no evidence that any murders had occurred.

That does not prove innocence, but it fundamentally challenges the claim that the medical evidence clearly demonstrated deliberate harm. When such a large group of independent experts reach the same conclusion, the criminal justice system has a duty to take notice.

Circumstantial Evidence Is Not Proof

The prosecution case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence: patterns of presence, timing, correlations, and inference. Circumstantial evidence can sometimes support a conviction — but it cannot replace direct proof.

If the alleged confession does not stand up to expert scrutiny, and the medical evidence does not clearly show criminal acts, then what remains is exactly that: circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence should never be elevated to certainty simply because the subject matter is emotive.

The Role of Senior Consultants Cannot Be Ignored

One of the most uncomfortable aspects of this case is how many formal safeguards were apparently bypassed.

There were multiple established routes for escalating serious concerns:

• The coroner, whose involvement would have triggered a police investigation

• The hospital’s Death Overview Panel, which already included police representation at inspector level

• Pathology services, which would have required a Home Office pathologist, had suspicion been raised

Yet the pathologist was never informed of any suspicion. If senior clinicians genuinely believed babies were being deliberately harmed, why were these mandatory pathways not followed?

This question remains unanswered — and it matters.

•  In 2016, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) conducted an independent review of the Countess of Chester neonatal unit and identified serious systemic failings. Staffing levels were inadequate for the acuity of babies being treated, senior oversight was limited, and consultants were conducting only two ward rounds per week rather than providing daily presence.

• The review also found that junior staff were reluctant to escalate concerns or seek senior help, contributing to delayed decisions and compromised care. This report was never shown to the Jury.

• Damning email told of 'chaos' on the neonatal unit in December 2015. A senior doctor reportedly warned in correspondence in December 2015 that the unit was chaotic, overstretched and unsafe for patients and staff due to workload and staffing pressures. Again, this email or reference to it was also never shown to the Jury.

• It is also relevant that Lucy Letby had recently succeeded in a formal grievance process against senior colleagues, with findings made in her favour. Such outcomes can strain professional relationships and create institutional tension, particularly in high-pressure environments where reputations and authority are challenged. This does not establish improper motive, but it raises a legitimate question as to whether interpersonal conflict or organisational defensiveness may have shaped subsequent decisions — a possibility that deserves careful, independent scrutiny rather than assumption or dismissal.

The Retrial and the “Red-Handed” Allegation

Post conviction email - tells a different story

Lucy Letby’s conviction in the retrial hinged heavily on the claim by one consultant that he had caught her “virtually red-handed”. That allegation proved decisive.

Subsequent emails, however, show that Lucy Letby herself contacted the consultant and asked for his help. This revelation significantly alters the interpretation of events. It is not consistent with someone attempting to hide wrongdoing and raises serious concerns about how that evidence was presented and understood.

When Experts Across Disciplines Raise the Alarm

Perhaps the strongest argument for review is the sheer range of professionals now questioning this conviction.

Those expressing concern include:

• A former Supreme Court judge

• Senior barristers and solicitors

• A former Secretary of State

• Professors of medicine and statistics

• High-ranking police officers

• Experienced doctors and nurses

These are not internet commentators or conspiracy theorists. These are people who understand evidence, standards of proof, institutional failure, and miscarriages of justice.

When such voices speak, they deserve to be heard.

Justice Requires Courage, Not Certainty

Revisiting a case is not a declaration of innocence. It is a recognition that the justice system must be willing to correct itself.

History is full of convictions once considered unassailable, later revealed to be unsafe — not because anyone intended wrongdoing, but because institutions closed ranks, assumptions hardened, and doubt became inconvenient.

The Lucy Letby case raises serious, evidence-based questions that will not disappear through repetition of verdicts or appeals to emotion.

A Call to Action: Justice Demands Review

This case can no longer be dismissed as “settled”. The volume, calibre, and seriousness of the professional concerns now raised place a moral and institutional obligation on those in power to act.

A formal, independent review must be initiated, or a speedy return to the appeal court by the CCRC. This case needs to be re-examined

• The medical evidence

• The interpretation of the handwritten notes

• The role of senior consultants

• The procedural failures that occurred long before police involvement

  
  

This review must be transparent, free from institutional self-protection, and guided by genuine multidisciplinary expertise.

Politicians, legal authorities, professional bodies, and the media all have a responsibility here.

Silence is not neutrality. When credible doubt exists, inaction becomes a decision in itself.

Members of the public should not be discouraged from asking hard questions. Questioning a conviction is not an attack on victims or families — it is a defence of the principle that justice must be based on evidence, not assumption or fear.

History will not judge us kindly if we look away because the truth is uncomfortable.

If our justice system is confident in its conclusions, it should have nothing to fear from scrutiny.

And if it is not, then scrutiny is not optional — it is essential.