Page 14 | To think that Lucy Letby will get a new trial?

NameChangeMay2026 · 2026-05-28T16:40:35+00:00

The previous thread on Letby is almost full. Posting here for traffic. If we have any lawyers here, what do you think the likelihood is of Letby getting a new trial? I'm a layperson, but I'm going to guess that she will get one. It seems that many, many rebuttals have appeared since her conviction. YABU - she will not get a new trial. The case is settled. YANBU - the new evidence/discussion is compelling and she will probably get a re-trial. I've been mainly convinced of her guilt, but I have started reading the free Private Eye series on the case by Phil Hammond. Now I don't know what to think. Here's the series, if anyone wants to read it. [[https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby]]

Original poster

NameChangeMay2026 · 01/06/2026 23:15

Firefly1987 · 01/06/2026 22:32

So ask yourself why they went to all that trouble over one nurse then. The managers didn't even care about the excess deaths. And a serial killer isn't going to attack 100% healthy patients-well not until she's done it enough she's gotten arrogant. It's like saying oh well these babies were sick so lets not bother doing anything about a potential serial killer! Thank god the doctors actually cared enough to stick to their guns.

Show quote history

It's possible they went to all that trouble over one nurse because they put two and two together and made five, and then saw confirmation bias everywhere. They were operating in an under-staffed, under-resourced, cramped unit and were losing lots of babies, at a time when neonatal deaths across England had risen for the first time in 100 years, for all those reasons. Stress can inhibit higher thinking and give you tunnel vision. A consultant on the hospital board said that while there was a rise in deaths, it was within statistical variance. You do sometimes get clusters of things.

What do you make of the fact that pathologists carried out post-mortems on six of the babies at the time and did not notice any signs of foul play?

Also, what do you make of LL's internet history being thoroughly searched and there being no mention of research about how to cause death, nothing about insulin or air embolism?

OP posts:

Oftenaddled · 01/06/2026 23:14

One thing a lot of people don't know about the whole debacle is that the expert witnesses weren't even agreed on what happened to the children, and in some cases didn't even attempt to specify it. The jury wasn't asked to determine it. The Court of Appeal tidied things up by deciding on a cause in each case, but quite how they decided this or read the jury's mind - something they are usually loath to do - remains to be guessed at ...

Firefly1987 · 01/06/2026 23:10

amateursleuth · 01/06/2026 22:49

Everyone can hold their own view of course but it's a long standing convention of news reporting that once someone is convicted of a crime, they can be referred to in the terms used for someone who has committed such a crime, without controversy. LL is a murderer in the eyes of the law. It's not outlandish or a whimsical individual choice to call her one.

Show quote history

They think she should be handled with kid gloves even now. It's a crazy case how the public have reacted to her. Totally unheard of. She's getting exactly what she wanted, it's the poor Lucy show on an international scale. They're even offended on her behalf at her being called a baby killer.

kkloo · 01/06/2026 23:09

CheeseNPickle3 · 01/06/2026 23:02

I'm not sure what would happen if the CCRC decided that the insulin evidence was no longer sufficient or the air embolus but not some of the other causes. If they retried (or quashed if the CPS no longer wanted to prosecute) some cases but left the others then she's still in jail and some of the parents are then left in limbo. Presumably that'd make everyone unhappy.

I guess that's the issue with such diverse methods of harm. Too much milk vs liver injury isn't linked at all, so presumably each case has to be taken completely independently. If they were consistent or even all poisonings say then you could link them for conviction or quashing conviction if new evidence comes to light. Or you could point out the places where you think the jury was misled in each case.

The CCRC appeal is based on the argument that there were no murders so therefore no case to answer. If they're convinced by that then the whole thing unravels.

Show quote history

There was about 9 or 10 air embolus charges and then the 2 insulin cases, if they fall they all fall I think.
If not it would just lead to another CCRC submission which would no doubt lead to the rest being quashed eventually anyway because the other cases wouldn't stand alone.

amateursleuth · 01/06/2026 23:07

CheeseNPickle3 · 01/06/2026 23:02

I'm not sure what would happen if the CCRC decided that the insulin evidence was no longer sufficient or the air embolus but not some of the other causes. If they retried (or quashed if the CPS no longer wanted to prosecute) some cases but left the others then she's still in jail and some of the parents are then left in limbo. Presumably that'd make everyone unhappy.

I guess that's the issue with such diverse methods of harm. Too much milk vs liver injury isn't linked at all, so presumably each case has to be taken completely independently. If they were consistent or even all poisonings say then you could link them for conviction or quashing conviction if new evidence comes to light. Or you could point out the places where you think the jury was misled in each case.

The CCRC appeal is based on the argument that there were no murders so therefore no case to answer. If they're convinced by that then the whole thing unravels.

Show quote history

Go big or go home. Will be interesting. Will the CCRC also have to rule on whether the cases are considered separately or as interdependent? I know very little about how they work.

Oftenaddled · 01/06/2026 23:06

CheeseNPickle3 · 01/06/2026 23:02

I'm not sure what would happen if the CCRC decided that the insulin evidence was no longer sufficient or the air embolus but not some of the other causes. If they retried (or quashed if the CPS no longer wanted to prosecute) some cases but left the others then she's still in jail and some of the parents are then left in limbo. Presumably that'd make everyone unhappy.

I guess that's the issue with such diverse methods of harm. Too much milk vs liver injury isn't linked at all, so presumably each case has to be taken completely independently. If they were consistent or even all poisonings say then you could link them for conviction or quashing conviction if new evidence comes to light. Or you could point out the places where you think the jury was misled in each case.

The CCRC appeal is based on the argument that there were no murders so therefore no case to answer. If they're convinced by that then the whole thing unravels.

Show quote history

It's hard to imagine how some of the cases could possibly stand alone.

Imagine charging a nurse with attempted murder because someone found a note in his files two years after he was discharged, saying that he had been screaming for an unknown span of time when some nurse, not necessarily this one, was looking after him, an incident not remarkable enough for anyone on duty to remember?

amateursleuth · 01/06/2026 23:04

kkloo · 01/06/2026 22:59

I didn't claim it was outlandish or a whimsical individual choice to call her one. I said it wasn't 'literally' factual that she is one.

Show quote history

A legal judgement is generally accepted as factual unless or until overturned. That carries weight, like it or not.What makes something literally factual for you? Do you have to have personally witnessed it?

CheeseNPickle3 · 01/06/2026 23:02

amateursleuth · 01/06/2026 22:45

ConvictionS. 7 for murder, 8 for attempted murder, is that correct? It seems like quite an ask to me to go from 15 life sentences, two attempts at appeal against those denied, to 'no case to answer, quash the convictions'. Yet that's being talked about as a natural and obvious thing to happen.

Show quote history

I'm not sure what would happen if the CCRC decided that the insulin evidence was no longer sufficient or the air embolus but not some of the other causes. If they retried (or quashed if the CPS no longer wanted to prosecute) some cases but left the others then she's still in jail and some of the parents are then left in limbo. Presumably that'd make everyone unhappy.

I guess that's the issue with such diverse methods of harm. Too much milk vs liver injury isn't linked at all, so presumably each case has to be taken completely independently. If they were consistent or even all poisonings say then you could link them for conviction or quashing conviction if new evidence comes to light. Or you could point out the places where you think the jury was misled in each case.

The CCRC appeal is based on the argument that there were no murders so therefore no case to answer. If they're convinced by that then the whole thing unravels.

kkloo · 01/06/2026 22:59

amateursleuth · 01/06/2026 22:49

Everyone can hold their own view of course but it's a long standing convention of news reporting that once someone is convicted of a crime, they can be referred to in the terms used for someone who has committed such a crime, without controversy. LL is a murderer in the eyes of the law. It's not outlandish or a whimsical individual choice to call her one.

Show quote history

I didn't claim it was outlandish or a whimsical individual choice to call her one. I said it wasn't 'literally' factual that she is one.

Oftenaddled · 01/06/2026 22:58

amateursleuth · 01/06/2026 22:45

ConvictionS. 7 for murder, 8 for attempted murder, is that correct? It seems like quite an ask to me to go from 15 life sentences, two attempts at appeal against those denied, to 'no case to answer, quash the convictions'. Yet that's being talked about as a natural and obvious thing to happen.

Show quote history

There's a domino effect.

In his summing up, the judge told the jury that if they found deliberate harm in any cases, they could take that into account in reaching a decision on other cases. They did not need to know how any injury or death was caused.

The jury was also told that the results of the insulin tests on babies F and L could only mean deliberate harm.

The first verdict the jury reached was on babies F and L.

This means that their guilty verdict on babies A, B, C, D, E, G, I, M, N, O and P can be considered to have depended to some extent on their verdict on babies F and L.

At the retrial, they were told that they could take the other verdicts into account re baby K.

Since that instruction re babies F and L now looks very shaky, that conviction is shaky likewise, and that undermines the rest of them.

Meanwhile, the evidence for all of the murder methods proposed has proved skewed or non existent under scrutiny since the trial. So the probability is that, after a long time, the whole thing will collapse like the house of cards it is

kkloo · 01/06/2026 22:57

amateursleuth · 01/06/2026 22:45

ConvictionS. 7 for murder, 8 for attempted murder, is that correct? It seems like quite an ask to me to go from 15 life sentences, two attempts at appeal against those denied, to 'no case to answer, quash the convictions'. Yet that's being talked about as a natural and obvious thing to happen.

Show quote history

I think initially most who thought the verdict could be unsafe thought there should have been a retrial, but so much has come out since then that it seems impossible that the CPS could put a case together, so to me it seems that even if a retrial is ordered it will not go ahead.

amateursleuth · 01/06/2026 22:49

kkloo · 01/06/2026 22:40

And you accepting the verdict doesn't mean that she is.

Show quote history

Everyone can hold their own view of course but it's a long standing convention of news reporting that once someone is convicted of a crime, they can be referred to in the terms used for someone who has committed such a crime, without controversy. LL is a murderer in the eyes of the law. It's not outlandish or a whimsical individual choice to call her one.

kkloo · 01/06/2026 22:48

Aluna · 01/06/2026 22:33

I see. So LL murdered all of them, but the other cases had even less evidence of her harming the babies than the ones that came to court - which was - none. Is that right?

Show quote history

Given what was put forward at trial I think it's safe to assume that if they could have come up with some far fetched theory to say that LL did it then they would have.

amateursleuth · 01/06/2026 22:45

NameChangeMay2026 · 01/06/2026 21:58

If there's no case to try, then she needs her conviction quashed.

Show quote history

ConvictionS. 7 for murder, 8 for attempted murder, is that correct? It seems like quite an ask to me to go from 15 life sentences, two attempts at appeal against those denied, to 'no case to answer, quash the convictions'. Yet that's being talked about as a natural and obvious thing to happen.

Firefly1987 · 01/06/2026 22:41

Aluna · 01/06/2026 22:33

I see. So LL murdered all of them, but the other cases had even less evidence of her harming the babies than the ones that came to court - which was - none. Is that right?

Show quote history

I don't know if she murdered more babies, I would strongly suspect so.

Certainly more than enough evidence for a jury to find her guilty on most charges and a judge to put her away on 14 WLOs-then another one on top.

kkloo · 01/06/2026 22:40

Firefly1987 · 01/06/2026 22:37

You not accepting it as factual doesn't mean she isn't.

Show quote history

And you accepting the verdict doesn't mean that she is.

Firefly1987 · 01/06/2026 22:37

kkloo · 01/06/2026 22:18

Legally she's considered one.
That's not the same as being literally factual.

Show quote history

You not accepting it as factual doesn't mean she isn't.

Oftenaddled · 01/06/2026 22:36

Firefly1987 · 01/06/2026 22:32

So ask yourself why they went to all that trouble over one nurse then. The managers didn't even care about the excess deaths. And a serial killer isn't going to attack 100% healthy patients-well not until she's done it enough she's gotten arrogant. It's like saying oh well these babies were sick so lets not bother doing anything about a potential serial killer! Thank god the doctors actually cared enough to stick to their guns.

Show quote history

I'm referring to the children for whom charges weren't brought.

For the rest, it seems clear when you track events through the Thirlwall documentation that the consultants accepted that the deaths had natural explanations until one noticed a statistical correlation, and others panicked and grasped for an explanation after the death of the two triplets.

Managers obviously cared about excess deaths. They closed the intensive care unit and refused - despite pressure from the consultants - to relax admission standards or to support reopening it

Aluna · 01/06/2026 22:33

Firefly1987 · 01/06/2026 22:05

They only brought so many to court-ones they thought they could get a conviction on. It may be she was there for the rest also but they had more complex problems and it was harder to prove harm.

Show quote history

I see. So LL murdered all of them, but the other cases had even less evidence of her harming the babies than the ones that came to court - which was - none. Is that right?

Firefly1987 · 01/06/2026 22:32

Oftenaddled · 01/06/2026 22:14

When you see the reports on these children's conditions, it really doesn't seem necessary to invent murders to explain their deaths.

Show quote history

So ask yourself why they went to all that trouble over one nurse then. The managers didn't even care about the excess deaths. And a serial killer isn't going to attack 100% healthy patients-well not until she's done it enough she's gotten arrogant. It's like saying oh well these babies were sick so lets not bother doing anything about a potential serial killer! Thank god the doctors actually cared enough to stick to their guns.

CheeseNPickle3 · 01/06/2026 22:29

amateursleuth · 01/06/2026 21:53

There never was any evidence of intentional harm in any of the cases or anything to link the deaths of the babies to LL in particular

The handover notes she kept, the internet searches for dates and family members, don't link her to those babies' deaths? They're not proof she killed the babies of course but they are an indication that LL at least felt a link. Is that all fine and normal? Do we think that should be ignored?

Show quote history

257 handover sheets in various bags. Collected over the years she worked there. Of which 21 related to the babies in question and 4 of the babies weren't mentioned at all. Not exactly great as "tropies".

2287 Facebook searches where 31 related to the parents of the babies. Media reports don't mention the numbers but only "many" searches.

Of course we don't know if other nurses took handover sheets home in pockets or searched Facebook because nobody else was investigated.

Viviennemary · 01/06/2026 22:27

Firefly1987 · 31/05/2026 19:26

Most of the documentaries heavily favoured her innocence and left out lots of evidence.

I think the fact her defence team seems not to have adequately challenged that chart the prosecution relied on (showing her being on shift for every one of the baby death cases in respect of which she was being tried) is a facet of lawyers being shit at maths - so not immediately looking for the holes in the stats. The challenge for that was to ask for disclosure of the other baby deaths she wasn’t on shift for and wasn’t being blamed for. But nobody seems to have bothered doing that.

You don't see why they wouldn't want to bring up any other deaths? What if she was on for those too? That wouldn't look good...I never understand this argument anyway. The claim wasn't that she killed every single baby that was ever on the unit. The chart was simply to show she was there for all the ones they'd charged her with. Her defence team more than likely know she's guilty (even if she didn't tell them it's blatantly obvious) they're not going to risk introducing any other babies she might've harmed into the mix. If she didn't harm them then they're irrelevant anyway as they obviously collapsed from natural causes which means there was no crime. It's expected on a unit like that, occasionally. How does that somehow prove she's innocent of the suspicious ones they charged her with?

There's no "nobody bothered to do that"-she had the best defence she could have, one of the best barristers in the country.

Show quote history

I can't think why people,believe she is innocent. She isn't. Hopefully all this fuss will die dowm and she will stay in prison where she belongs, babies in her care kept dying unexpectedly. Doctors grew suspicious and no wonder.

Oftenaddled · 01/06/2026 22:26

Firefly1987 · 01/06/2026 22:10

Yes because it's THAT obvious she's guilty. They're no better than the experts that testified in court. Everything that could've been a possible explanation was already gone over with a fine tooth comb. If people think the jury didn't hear everything then I dread to think how long they expect a trial to last. 5 years maybe.

Show quote history

People sometimes assume all of the necessary detail was covered because the trial was long. Of course, the trial was dealing with 22 separate incidents, so it was always going to be long. But the expert witnesses were often pretty sloppy, and of course the judge excluded all sorts of information from consideration. Even before you consider the evidence that is new since the trial, there is no way you can claim the jury heard anything like the full story.

kkloo · 01/06/2026 22:18

Firefly1987 · 01/06/2026 22:03

It's literally factual-she IS a baby killer. What would you prefer?

Show quote history

Legally she's considered one.
That's not the same as being literally factual.

Original poster

NameChangeMay2026 · 01/06/2026 22:16

Firefly1987 · 01/06/2026 22:10

Yes because it's THAT obvious she's guilty. They're no better than the experts that testified in court. Everything that could've been a possible explanation was already gone over with a fine tooth comb. If people think the jury didn't hear everything then I dread to think how long they expect a trial to last. 5 years maybe.

Show quote history

Can all those fine brains really be so wrong, though? There were 14 doctors on that panel (I think). There does seem to be an expert consensus and same in the broadsheets. It gives me pause. If LL had called defence experts, she might not have been convicted. The jury didn't hear the other side of the arguments.

OP posts: