This site is not saying the convictions have been overturned.
Lucy Letby was convicted in 2023 and again at retrial in 2024. The direct appeal was refused. Unless and until a court rules otherwise, the convictions stand.
Editorial framing
What this site is not saying
A line-by-line statement of what this site does and does not assert. We have written it so that readers, journalists, MPs, lawyers and clinicians can quickly see where the site stops.
This site is not saying the CCRC has made a decision.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission received the application on the evening of 3 February 2025 (publicly announced 4 February 2025). Its review is ongoing. Receipt of an application is not a finding; the CCRC refers cases on a 'real possibility' test and refers roughly 3% of applications it receives.
This site is not attacking bereaved families.
Seventeen babies died or collapsed on the unit. Their families lost children. Nothing on this site is intended to dispute their grief, to identify private individuals, or to invite contact with families.
This site is not dismissing the seriousness of the deaths and collapses.
Asking whether the conviction evidence is safe is not the same as denying that babies died. Both can be true: serious harm occurred AND the evidence used to attribute that harm to a single person may be open to challenge.
This site is not claiming that every hospital failing proves innocence.
Institutional failings at the Countess of Chester Hospital — staffing, escalation, sewage, governance — are real and on the Thirlwall record. But institutional failure does not automatically displace individual criminal responsibility, and we do not assert that it does.
This site is not claiming that every expert critic is automatically correct.
Named experts disagree with one another. Where experts disagree, the site labels claims accordingly and links to the source so the reader can assess the weight to give them.
This site is not a court, tribunal, inquiry, legal representative or official campaign body.
It is an independently maintained public-interest archive. It has no legal authority, no privileged information, and no role in any proceedings.
This site IS asking whether the conviction evidence remains safe in light of later expert criticism and public material.
That question is now being asked by the CCRC, by named medical and statistical experts, by parliamentarians and by journalists. The site exists to organise the public material that is feeding into that question.
This site distinguishes court findings, prosecution claims, defence arguments, expert criticism, media reporting and commentary.
Each major item is labelled with a claim-status badge and a source-reliability level. A higher source level does not automatically make a claim correct — it makes the source type easier to verify.
This site encourages careful reading of primary sources wherever possible.
Every major page links to court judgments, sentencing remarks, Thirlwall transcripts, expert reports and Hansard. Where we summarise, we link to the original so readers can check our work.
In one sentence: This site does not claim that the convictions have been overturned, that the CCRC has reached a decision, or that hospital failings alone prove innocence. The purpose of the site is to organise public material and disputed expert analysis so readers can understand why questions have been raised about the safety of the convictions.
Found a sentence elsewhere on the site that conflicts with this page? Send a correction and we will fix it.