Lucy Letby

[Nobby]

My Swingometer has gone both ways on this.
Early days and during the trial I thought she was as guilty as could be, but since her conviction, the “real” experts have cast doubt.
I swung to the not guilty side a few years back.
Senior Lucy Letby hospital boss arrested
Signage is seen outside an entrance to the Countess of Chester Hospital in Chester
IMAGE SOURCE, PA WIRE
Image caption,
Investigations are under way into senior leadership at the hospital after the murders
ByEwan Gawne
North West
Published
23 April 2026
A senior healthcare boss who worked at the hospital where nurse Lucy Letby murdered seven babies has been arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice.
Cheshire Police said they were held then bailed after a search of a property on Wednesday as part of a wider investigation into senior leadership at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
It is part of the force's ongoing Operation Duet - two separate investigations into corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter at the hospital.
The inquiry began after Letby's conviction in 2023 for murdering the infants and attempting to murder seven others in its neonatal unit in 2015 and 2016.
No details have been revealed by the force about the age or gender of the person arrested, or where the property that was searched was.
But it is understood they are one of the three hospital bosses arrested and bailed in 2025 on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.
A statement from Cheshire Police said "searches at the property have now concluded".
"Both the corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter elements of the investigation are continuing and there are no set timescales for these," it added.
Screen grab taken from body worn camera footage issued by Cheshire Constabulary of the arrest of Lucy Letby.
IMAGE SOURCE, PA MEDIA
Image caption,
Letby was sentenced to life in prison in October 2023 after a lengthy trial
The force began its corporate manslaughter investigation into senior leaders at the hospital to "determine whether any criminality has taken place concerning the response to the increased levels of fatalities".
This includes any "grossly negligent action or inaction of individuals", it said.
It was widened in March 2025 to include gross negligence manslaughter.

[Horse]

"Both the corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter elements...

The force began its corporate manslaughter investigation into senior leaders at the hospital to "determine whether any criminality has taken place concerning the response to the increased levels of fatalities".
This includes any "grossly negligent action or inaction of individuals", it said.
It was widened in March 2025 to include gross negligence manslaughter.

So, rather than:
'Did Letby do it?'

Does that mean:
'Why didn't they stop it sooner?'

['It' being 'increased levels of fatalities']

?

[Bobzilla]

I have no idea whether she did it or not, but I do believe that we cannot say for certain and therefore she should not be convicted. 'Probably' doesn't cut it in criminal trials.

[gremlin]

I have no idea whether she did it or not, but I do believe that we cannot say for certain and therefore she should not be convicted. 'Probably' doesn't cut it in criminal trials.

Who's 'we'?

A jury sat and heard the evidence for both both prosecution and defence. They then made a decision based upon that evidence which was 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Until such evidence comes up to question that decision the conviction stands.

[Taipan]

I watched a program about this and there is lot of shaky evidence for sure! Having served on a jury, I'm not exactly sure the verdict is guaranteed to be correct either, but that's the system we have, right.

The program I saw seemed to indicate her notes were the biggest strike against her and they certainly lent themselves to her conviction! But there were a lot of inconsistencies and there are children that died and presented the same symptoms as a cause of death as the ones she was convicted of, but this happened at times she wasn't even on shift!

As it stands she is giulty of course, but I certainly understand calls for a retrial.

[Saga Lout]

I have no idea whether she did it or not, but I do believe that we cannot say for certain and therefore she should not be convicted. 'Probably' doesn't cut it in criminal trials.

Yes it does. The standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" not "beyond all doubt".

[Mussels]

I watched a program about this and there is lot of shaky evidence for sure! Having served on a jury, I'm not exactly sure the verdict is guaranteed to be correct either, but that's the system we have, right.

The program I saw seemed to indicate her notes were the biggest strike against her and they certainly lent themselves to her conviction! But there were a lot of inconsistencies and there are children that died and presented the same symptoms as a cause of death as the ones she was convicted of, but this happened at times she wasn't even on shift!

As it stands she is giulty of course, but I certainly understand calls for a retrial.

I gather the notes were written on the guidance of a therapist and the jury weren't told this, if so I don't think they should be admissable.
I also think the CPS perverted the course of justice with their misleading stats.

It doesn't mean I think she's innocent but if guilty she isn't the only one.

[Count Steer]

I watched a program about this and there is lot of shaky evidence for sure! Having served on a jury, I'm not exactly sure the verdict is guaranteed to be correct either, but that's the system we have, right.

The program I saw seemed to indicate her notes were the biggest strike against her and they certainly lent themselves to her conviction! But there were a lot of inconsistencies and there are children that died and presented the same symptoms as a cause of death as the ones she was convicted of, but this happened at times she wasn't even on shift!

As it stands she is giulty of course, but I certainly understand calls for a retrial.

I gather the notes were written on the guidance of a therapist and the jury weren't told this, if so I don't think they should be admissable.
I also think the CPS perverted the course of justice with their misleading stats.

It doesn't mean I think she's innocent but if guilty she isn't the only one.

+ there are some serious questions to be asked regarding,

a) the fact that a key witness was under investigation (undeclared to the court) for harming patients
b) there are numerous questions regarding conflicting statements by the main, independent expert witness and over his retraction of some conclusions he made + his report was reviewed by someone batting for the prosecution
c) the defence team appeared to verge very closely on rank incompetence eg never called an expert witness of their own to challenge anything arising from the above

I predict that the verdict will, at some point in the future, be deemed 'unsafe'. It looks awfully like a culprit was needed rather than justice was done and seen to be done. As above, she may or may not have done some or all of the things she was convicted of but we should expect a certain standard from our legal process and it appears to have been sadly lacking.

[Yorick]

Lots of experts here who haven't actually seen the evidence.

But rumour and conjecture seem to be more important nowadays.

[Taipan]

Lots of experts here who haven't actually seen the evidence.

But rumour and conjecture seem to be more important nowadays.

There have been lots of questions raised by people who are experts, though, and that's where our thoughts are coming from. But, hell yeah, I'm always up for a bit of idle speculation and conjecture!

[Count Steer]

Lots of experts here who haven't actually seen the evidence.

But rumour and conjecture seem to be more important nowadays.

There have been lots of questions raised by people who are experts, though, and that's where our thoughts are coming from. But, hell yeah, I'm always up for a bit of idle speculation and conjecture!

+ some of us are reflecting the published views of experts that have reviewed the evidence rather than just kite-flying.

[Yorick]

Views of experts is still bollox. But carry on anyway

I'm an expert. Want my views?

Facts have no place here

[Horse]

I'm an expert. Want my views?

Views of experts is still bollox.

Thanks

[Yambo]

Lots of experts here who haven't actually seen the evidence.

But rumour and conjecture seem to be more important nowadays.

With not one piece of hard evidence against, it could be argued that she was convicted on rumour and conjecture.

Fifteen whole life terms for possibly dodgy circumstantial evidence is just wrong.

I have no idea if she is actually guilty or innocent of any crime but I hold the opinion that her conviction was unsafe.

[Bobzilla]

I have no idea whether she did it or not, but I do believe that we cannot say for certain and therefore she should not be convicted. 'Probably' doesn't cut it in criminal trials.

Yes it does. The standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" not "beyond all doubt".

You've just totally contradicted yourself. Probably is by definition 51%. That's the standard in a civil trial. Beyond all reasonable doubt is virtually certain. It's expressed by Barristers as ~99% certain. We don't convict people unless we are basically certain that they did it. Better many guilty men go free then one innocent person be convicted.

[Bobzilla]

I have no idea whether she did it or not, but I do believe that we cannot say for certain and therefore she should not be convicted. 'Probably' doesn't cut it in criminal trials.

Who's 'we'?

A jury sat and heard the evidence for both both prosecution and defence. They then made a decision based upon that evidence which was 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Until such evidence comes up to question that decision the conviction stands.

We is quite a lot of people. We is also the experts whose studies were used by the prosecution. Juries get it wrong, and juries are more likely to get it wrong on a statistical analysis than anything else.

[Saga Lout]

I have no idea whether she did it or not, but I do believe that we cannot say for certain and therefore she should not be convicted. 'Probably' doesn't cut it in criminal trials.

Yes it does. The standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" not "beyond all doubt".

You've just totally contradicted yourself. Probably is by definition 51%. That's the standard in a civil trial. Beyond all reasonable doubt is virtually certain. It's expressed by Barristers as ~99% certain. We don't convict people unless we are basically certain that they did it. Better many guilty men go free then one innocent person be convicted.

probably: (adverb)
used to mean that something is very likely
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... h/probably

More than 51% (well, more than 50% really) is "the balance of probabilities", the standard in civil cases. The standard in criminal cases is, rightly, considerably higher. You know, very likely or maybe a bit more than that but still probably, as opposed to definitely.

[Bobzilla]

In law 'probably' means essentially more likely than not. It is shorthand for balance of probabilities. Even if you take your definition of 'highly likely', that still doesn't cut it in criminal cases. The standard of proof is 'Beyond all reasonable doubt', which is 'virtually certain'. 'Probably' means a truck load of innocent people going to jail. Virtually certain might mean some guilty people go free, but it also means that for innocent people to go to jail it usually involves some sort of malfeasance on behalf of the police.

Or, a defence that doesn't do their job properly and a jury that doesn't understand technical evidence as presented by the grown..

[Mussels]

In law 'probably' means essentially more likely than not. It is shorthand for balance of probabilities. Even if you take your definition of 'highly likely', that still doesn't cut it in criminal cases. The standard of proof is 'Beyond all reasonable doubt', which is 'virtually certain'. 'Probably' means a truck load of innocent people going to jail. Virtually certain might mean some guilty people go free, but it also means that for innocent people to go to jail it usually involves some sort of malfeasance on behalf of the police.

Or, a defence that doesn't do their job properly and a jury that doesn't understand technical evidence as presented by the grown..

Legal aid defence is mostly trash. That could work if the CPS were honest, but they seem to be no better than the police where a result is much more important than the truth.

[Saga Lout]

In law 'probably' means essentially more likely than not. It is shorthand for balance of probabilities. Even if you take your definition of 'highly likely', that still doesn't cut it in criminal cases. The standard of proof is 'Beyond all reasonable doubt', which is 'virtually certain'. 'Probably' means a truck load of innocent people going to jail. Virtually certain might mean some guilty people go free, but it also means that for innocent people to go to jail it usually involves some sort of malfeasance on behalf of the police.

Or, a defence that doesn't do their job properly and a jury that doesn't understand technical evidence as presented by the grown..

When the law means the balance of probabilities the law uses the phrase "the balance of probabilities". "Beyond reasonable doubt" means very probable or very, very* probable, otherwise it would be "beyond any doubt", wouldn't it?

* Add another "very" and another and another if you want but "beyond reasonable doubt" still means "probable" not "certain".