When the judge sentenced neonatal nurse Lucy Letby last August to spend the rest of her life in prison, he described her as a “cold, calculated, cruel and relentless” killer - similar words to those levelled at Myra Hindley when she stood in the dock. Convicted initially of the murder of seven infants and the attempted murder of a further six, Letby was found guilty of a seventh attempted murder after a retrial earlier this summer.

At the time, there was little doubt in the public mind that Letby was one of the most despicable killers in living memory. Only the fourth women in British history to receive a whole-life sentence, she was recently described by the BBC as “arguably the most notorious serial killer of modern times”. Universally reviled, she was depicted as a monster hiding in plain sight, whose outward displays of concern for the vulnerable babies in her care disguised a murderous predator.

Like most of us, I didn’t question the verdict. The evidence seemed conclusive, among it Letby’s confessional notes in which she wrote “I am evil” and “I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough”. Without being present at the 10-month trial, onlookers had to rely on media reporting. As portrayed by the vast majority of newspapers and TV news channels, this was a black and white case, with Letby’s guilt never in doubt.

It was not until May, 2024, when the New Yorker published a 13,000-word article questioning the safety of Letby’s conviction – which was banned from publication in the UK – that doubts began to creep in.

Lucy Letby left confessional notes in which she wrote “I am evil”Lucy Letby left confessional notes in which she wrote “I am evil” (Image: free)

Those in the medical profession who had previously been silent for fear of opprobrium started to speak up. Even now, most remain anonymous to protect their careers. Next month the Thirwell inquiry opens to investigate the way the NHS handled the situation at the Countess of Chester neonatal unit. In the past week a private letter, signed by 24 experts, has requested either that the inquiry be delayed, or that its scope is widened to take into consideration these newly raised concerns and look at the broader picture.

This is only the latest signal of a growing unease that, by concentrating solely on Letby’s involvement, systemic problems in the NHS that could impact the welfare of babies might have been missed. The implication is that, while nobody is able to say that Letby is innocent of the crimes for which she has been convicted, it is legitimate to ask if the case against her was proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Among those critical of the way the trial was conducted are a number of medics and statisticians who believe some of the evidence presented in court may have been misinterpreted. Some claim that the case is worryingly circumstantial, since nobody actually saw Letby tampering with equipment or harming the babies. Confident about the court’s decision, however, is the barrister Tim Owen, KC, who says that the accumulation of circumstantial evidence, as here, can make a very strong case. He has seen nothing, he says, to suggest Letby’s conviction is a miscarriage of justice.

Yet among the various elements people find unsettling is that, while the prosecution fielded six medical experts the defence produced none, calling only on a plumber to confirm problems with the drains. One of the UK’s top forensic pathologists told Private Eye, “it amazes me that she didn’t have a battery of defence experts”.

Read more by Rosemary Goring

After being contacted by medical professionals, scientists and statisticians, MP Sir David Davis is now looking into Letby’s case. He told the BBC: “I started to think – it’s a terrible crime, but if they’ve got it wrong, it’s a terrible miscarriage of justice.”

With a litany of problems at the unit, among them staff shortages, lack of training, and issues with sewage, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the tragic deaths of these fragile babies - all but one of whom were premature, and three of whom weighed less than three pounds - might have been the result of other factors rather than malice. In the words of one doctor, “Human errors are common. Murder isn’t.” Despite this, as Davis says, “All of us find it easier to believe that a villain has killed people rather than a system or a random act”.

That is a truly chilling truth. When faced with seemingly inexplicable tragedies, there is often a powerful urge to pin the blame on someone. In a situation as harrowing as the cluster of sudden, unexpected mortalities at the Countess of Chester, the need to find a culprit was probably instinctual, even though the lives of babies in units such as this can be so precarious they hang by a thread. Sometimes, when they die, there is no obvious explanation of why.

This does not, of course, mean Letby is not a murderer. Serial killers, while incredibly rare, do exist. But what can be said is that after the dreadful spike in infant deaths there seems to have been as great an impetus to prove one person’s culpability as to investigate the role of the hospital, even though the neonatal unit was plainly under enormous strain.

The deaths happened at the Countess of Chester neonatal unitThe deaths happened at the Countess of Chester neonatal unit (Image: free)

Finding a scapegoat for a calamity is basic human nature. Just think of the witchhunt crazes of bygone centuries, or pogroms in which Jews were massacred in their thousands. The need to demonize and destroy those deemed responsible for misfortune is hard-wired into our brains. Understandably, after Letby’s trial nurses in similar units are so terrified of what might happen should there be sudden, unexplained deaths that, in at least one instance, a CCTV camera has been installed as a safeguard.

With the Letby case once again making headlines, the anguish of the parents and families of those babies who died cannot be imagined. At the heart of all this is their sorrow, pain and loss, and we should never lose sight of that.

Yet since doubts have been raised over the safety of Letby’s conviction, there is surely an obligation on society to investigate, if only to lay these suspicions to rest. To date, Letby’s request for an appeal has been denied on the grounds that there is no new evidence. So will we ever know with certainty that she has been rightly or wrongly convicted? It is in the public interest, and especially that of infants in neonatal units, that this question is answered.

Rosemary Goring is a columnist and author. Her most recent book is Homecoming: The Scottish Years of Mary, Queen of Scots