Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Lucy Letby not charged with further crimes - what does this say about her current convictions

765 replies

mids2019 · 20/01/2026 19:16

So no more charges for Lucy Letby currently.

I can't say I am surprised as the tactics the CPS used the first time to secure convictions wont wash. There have been too many questions about the 'expert' evidence in the first trial and in my opinion the CPS don't want to take the risk of trying again with a more possibly more aware jury.

The police seem to be not too happy and probably thought they had similar evidence as they had initially so were taken aback by the CPS decision. They have had to approach parents to say that their children dies either through medical incompetence or through natural causes. The poor parents will now feel distraught and confused being lef up the garden path and the police maybe telling them Lucy was guilty.

I wonder if this is paving the way for a retrial?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
Oftenaddled · 23/01/2026 00:42

Here as illustration is nursery 1, where Lucy Letby is alleged to have attacked babies A, H and P while other medics were cotside or even working on them directly. This isn't just a defence claim - it's what the prosecution proposed. (Picture may take a while to load).

Lucy Letby not charged with further crimes - what does this say about her current convictions
Lucy Letby not charged with further crimes - what does this say about her current convictions
Frequency · 23/01/2026 00:43

Firefly1987 · 22/01/2026 22:35

@kkloo they didn't say there was no sign of anything being wrong. I think the jury know they all needed some help or other else they wouldn't be in a NICU unit in the first place...never mind most of them being in room 1 for higher needs babies. They simply had catastrophic collapses around ONE nurse when parents and other staff left them previously stable. That's just the truth. It happened to babies not even in the trial.

Do you not ever ask yourself why you think they're so hell bent on persecuting one young woman for absolutely no reason? How would you even get 7 consultants to all agree to do that? Never mind the police?

It's easy to understand why it happened when you look at the events from start to finish, going back to before Letby qualified to look after babies needing a higher level care.

2014 - Baby Noah Robinson died after a consultant (one of the 7 involved in gathering evidence against Letby) misplaced a breathing tube, placing it in the oesophagus. Noah's parents noted at the time that the unit was grossly understaffed, leading to tests and X-rays not being reviewed for up to 7 hours. Only one senior doctor was on duty on the ward, and their time was split between NICU and the children's ward. Warning signs of Noah's deteriorating condition were ignored. (Note - Letby did not qualify to work with high-needs babies until 2015 and was not mentioned in the inquest of Noah's death). Someone more suspicious than I might wonder if this is where Jayaram got the idea of air embolism from, as it was Jayaram who first brought this up, not a pathologist or the police.

June 2015 - The death of baby A is noted as the start of a spike in deaths in the NICU.

July 2015 - Breary begins his own review into the deaths of baby A, C and D, and C. He noted Letby was on shift and raised this to a manager. There is no evidence to show he considered consultant negligence in light of baby Noah, or the declining state of the hospital itself. Letby was the most senior nurse, so naturally cared for the sickest babies. She also worked the most hours.

December 2015 - COCH is ordered to pay Noah's parents £8m in damages.

Feb 2016 - A review by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health shows the unit had insufficient senior cover, junior staff (read the consultants) had a reluctance to seek advice when needed, and the unit had poor infection control. They found nothing to suggest deliberate harm.

June 2016 - emails between Dr. Stephen Brearey, Dr. Ravi Jayaram, Dr. John Gibbs, and Dr. Murthy Saladi show they began discussing Letby as a potential suspect in the deaths, again ignoring the state of the ward or the consultants themselves.

Jayaram brings up air embolism as a possible method of murder.

Late 2016 - Lucy files an official grievance against Breary et al after she is removed from the ward due to repeated accusations from them.

The CQC downgraded the unit after a report found the unit to be understaffed and under-resourced.

Jan 2017 - The hospital review board ruled in Letby's favour. Breary et al are forced to apologise to Letby.

May 2017 - after having to apologise, Breary et al push managers to contact the police.

The police then rely on testimony from Breary et al to form their case, including Jayaram's suspicion of air embolism. They do initially ask various experts for their help, but ultimately decide not to go ahead with them after none of them find evidence of murder.

Dewi then volunteers on the basis that he can "solve the case over a cup of coffee" and that he "knew she was guilty from the start", i.e he is working backwards from murder and looking for evidence to fit his theory. He changes the causes of death frequently during his initial investigations to fit Lucy's shift pattern and comes up with the theory of air embolism after reading police notes on Jayaram's theories.

It wasn't that they all sat around and decided to blame Letby for the hell of it; it was a whole clusterfuck of self-preservation after witnessing a colleague investigated for negligence, an attempt to prevent HR involvement in their own conduct, and a series of poor decision-making by the police.

Oftenaddled · 23/01/2026 00:46

Here is nursery 2, where Lucy Letby was indeed alone with babies E and O, and the prosecution claims that she injured both with sharp or blunt force unobserved. She'd have had to be quite lucky, wouldn't she, with these windows to the corridor? (Image may take a while to load)

This case is just full of exaggerations, large and small, twisted to try to make a convincing narrative. It really doesn't bear much scrutiny at all.

Lucy Letby not charged with further crimes - what does this say about her current convictions
kkloo · 23/01/2026 01:00

This case is just full of exaggerations, large and small, twisted to try to make a convincing narrative.

Even down to how they made a huge deal out of her apparently 'lying' about what she was wearing when she was arrested.

Firefly1987 · 23/01/2026 01:01

kkloo · 23/01/2026 00:35

It sure can, especially when there's proof that crimes have been committed.
In this case there is no proof of murder or attempted murder and the circumstantial evidence was weak.

RJ discredited himself.

Such a stupid comment about the CCTV, if there was CCTV evidence then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

It's nothing to do with not wanting her to be guilty, it's that we're not convinced, this must be the 20th thread you've said this on, you don't WANT to believe that people just aren't convinced by the evidence, you will come up with all sorts of irrational theories rather than accept the obvious one.

It's nothing to do with not wanting her to be guilty, it's that we're not convinced, this must be the 20th thread you've said this on, you don't WANT to believe that people just aren't convinced by the evidence, you will come up with all sorts of irrational theories rather than accept the obvious one.

Here's another theory then-we've heard nothing but "she didn't do it" from her shady lawyer and the panel he's assembled whilst everyone else who knows she's guilty has kept a dignified silence. That's why half the population have lost their minds over it being a MOJ-gaslighting and brainwashing by that used car salesman of a barrister of hers.

That's why it's going to be wonderful to see the police finally fight back and lay it all out-along with some parents in the new documentary. That'll turn swathes of the population back to thinking she's guilty.

kkloo · 23/01/2026 01:03

@Firefly1987
If you say so.

You were also convinced that we'd all be eating our words when she was charged with new crimes, which you thought was definitely going to happen.........

Frequency · 23/01/2026 01:12

@Firefly1987 you keep asking posters to justify why they are not convinced by the evidence, but you've yet to explain why you are convinced.

Why do you believe the police and Dewi Evans are more qualified to ascertain air embolism as a cause of death than Dr Shoo Lee, who has written 400 peer-reviewed research papers on neonatal care, including several papers on air embolism?

Oftenaddled · 23/01/2026 01:20

Firefly1987 · 23/01/2026 01:01

It's nothing to do with not wanting her to be guilty, it's that we're not convinced, this must be the 20th thread you've said this on, you don't WANT to believe that people just aren't convinced by the evidence, you will come up with all sorts of irrational theories rather than accept the obvious one.

Here's another theory then-we've heard nothing but "she didn't do it" from her shady lawyer and the panel he's assembled whilst everyone else who knows she's guilty has kept a dignified silence. That's why half the population have lost their minds over it being a MOJ-gaslighting and brainwashing by that used car salesman of a barrister of hers.

That's why it's going to be wonderful to see the police finally fight back and lay it all out-along with some parents in the new documentary. That'll turn swathes of the population back to thinking she's guilty.

That dignified silence from Dewi Evans sure has been deafening.

(See also: Nicole Bohin, Steven Brearey, Ravi Jayaram, John Gibbs, Paul Hughes and Cheshire Constabulary ... )

No, that theory is demonstrably false.

kkloo · 23/01/2026 01:22

Oftenaddled · 23/01/2026 01:20

That dignified silence from Dewi Evans sure has been deafening.

(See also: Nicole Bohin, Steven Brearey, Ravi Jayaram, John Gibbs, Paul Hughes and Cheshire Constabulary ... )

No, that theory is demonstrably false.

Dewis silence was so dignified that the police had to actually tell him to stop talking about one of the babies in the press.

Oftenaddled · 23/01/2026 01:25

kkloo · 23/01/2026 01:22

Dewis silence was so dignified that the police had to actually tell him to stop talking about one of the babies in the press.

He also went into a sulk and said he wouldn't be speaking to the press any more after the international expert presented, but somehow it never lasts. He even put out his own little press statement yesterday, saying he knew all along there wouldn't be fresh charges (so there!)

More a sullen clamour than a dignified silence from Evans and his friends in the police, so far.

Oftenaddled · 23/01/2026 01:35

I find it so weird when people talk as if they were personally acquainted with Mark McDonald and consider him some kind of sinister supervillain. On what grounds? That he represents his clients and argues for their innocence?

I'd like to think that, even if I believed Lucy Letby was guilty, I'd be glad she had proper legal representation and admire anyone working pro-bono in the cause of justice.

Why the need to make everything into such a drama?

Piglet89 · 23/01/2026 05:10

Firefly1987 · 23/01/2026 00:15

Circumstantial evidence can be very compelling. And I can't believe people actually make the point that no one saw her do anything when she had plenty of time alone to do it. She specifically waited for other staff and parents to leave. If someone had seen her they'd just be discredited (like they've tried to do with RJ and baby E's mum) because people simply don't WANT to believe she's guilty no matter what comes out. This new documentary could have CCTV footage and people would claim it was doctored-too far into it defending her to admit they got it so wrong is my guess.

“Compelling” isn’t enough. I’m serving on a jury right now.

The judge’s actual directions in explaining beyond reasonable doubt were that you have to be sure the defendant did that of which they are accused. Not “did you find the prosecution’s version of events compelling?”

I cannot believe so many people misunderstand this standard or wilfully ignore it, when the stakes are so high, especially in the case of a whole life order.

There is now enough doubt in this case that it is WELL beyond reasonable. Not just from crazy keyboard warriors: internationally renowned experts have cast such doubt. That makes the conviction unsafe.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 23/01/2026 06:58

Firefly1987 · 23/01/2026 01:01

It's nothing to do with not wanting her to be guilty, it's that we're not convinced, this must be the 20th thread you've said this on, you don't WANT to believe that people just aren't convinced by the evidence, you will come up with all sorts of irrational theories rather than accept the obvious one.

Here's another theory then-we've heard nothing but "she didn't do it" from her shady lawyer and the panel he's assembled whilst everyone else who knows she's guilty has kept a dignified silence. That's why half the population have lost their minds over it being a MOJ-gaslighting and brainwashing by that used car salesman of a barrister of hers.

That's why it's going to be wonderful to see the police finally fight back and lay it all out-along with some parents in the new documentary. That'll turn swathes of the population back to thinking she's guilty.

Can I have some of what you’re smoking?

mids2019 · 23/01/2026 07:02

This documentary really is inappropriate and seems to be a very poor attempt at snoring up support for a verdict more and more people are questioning ; it's akin to propaganda. To allow footage of a young woman being arrested in bed to be aired on national TV doesn't exactly cover Cheshire police in glory and having poor grieving parents give an interview just seems inappropriate given the parents as a whole are probably in some psychological hell not knowing if Lucy is guilty and may be having to grasp into her perceived guilt as a mental lifeline.

Also the parents of the children where charges were dismissed won't have any TV shows or public enquiries about them. I suppose they will have inquests where the result is going to be natural death of medical misintervnetion which will be wounding after Cheshire police led them up the garden path with promises of 'justice'.

OP posts:
CommonlyKnownAs · 23/01/2026 07:02

Piglet89 · 22/01/2026 23:37

The CoA will not be able to look at this because juries’ deliberations (which would shed light on the weight they placed on various pieces of evidence) are not recorded.

Jonathan Sumption wrote about this very thing, saying it was a weakness of trial by jury in his piece “The Case Against Jury Trials” in the Telegraph this week.

Yep.

Which is why it was foolish of that poster to make claims about whether Letby was convicted on any particular piece of evidence or claim that was made. And why she conveniently didn't have the judgement to hand, then ignored when I linked to it.

She isn't the only one though. Multiple posters who don't like the flaws in the case being pointed out like to claim that it doesn't matter because there were other experts, it wasn't important, that's not why the conviction happened. When actually they've no way of knowing why the jury convicted and what weight they placed on which evidence. Not a fucking clue.

mids2019 · 23/01/2026 07:09

I think the mob mentality regarding Lucy was absolutely prevalent and maybe public feeling emboldened the police to continue their search into other hospitals given the prominence of the case in the media. It is this job mentality that is slowly fading and perhaps there were those that wanted to shore up Lucy's guilt by somewhat desperately expanding the search for new vicitms.

We note have to face the statistical conundrum of how all the victims were identified in one hospital and not iothers? If Lucy had committed crimes in other hospitals why was the evidence so different from the CoC that no charges could be brought. Should managers at Liverpool be held to account of the police are so convinced of crimes committed there and should they be brought into a public enquiry? If Lucy was perpetrating crimes at another hospital why was no one suspicious there; where were the crusading doctors.

The whole thing is very dodgy.

OP posts:
TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 23/01/2026 08:11

Frequency · 23/01/2026 00:43

It's easy to understand why it happened when you look at the events from start to finish, going back to before Letby qualified to look after babies needing a higher level care.

2014 - Baby Noah Robinson died after a consultant (one of the 7 involved in gathering evidence against Letby) misplaced a breathing tube, placing it in the oesophagus. Noah's parents noted at the time that the unit was grossly understaffed, leading to tests and X-rays not being reviewed for up to 7 hours. Only one senior doctor was on duty on the ward, and their time was split between NICU and the children's ward. Warning signs of Noah's deteriorating condition were ignored. (Note - Letby did not qualify to work with high-needs babies until 2015 and was not mentioned in the inquest of Noah's death). Someone more suspicious than I might wonder if this is where Jayaram got the idea of air embolism from, as it was Jayaram who first brought this up, not a pathologist or the police.

June 2015 - The death of baby A is noted as the start of a spike in deaths in the NICU.

July 2015 - Breary begins his own review into the deaths of baby A, C and D, and C. He noted Letby was on shift and raised this to a manager. There is no evidence to show he considered consultant negligence in light of baby Noah, or the declining state of the hospital itself. Letby was the most senior nurse, so naturally cared for the sickest babies. She also worked the most hours.

December 2015 - COCH is ordered to pay Noah's parents £8m in damages.

Feb 2016 - A review by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health shows the unit had insufficient senior cover, junior staff (read the consultants) had a reluctance to seek advice when needed, and the unit had poor infection control. They found nothing to suggest deliberate harm.

June 2016 - emails between Dr. Stephen Brearey, Dr. Ravi Jayaram, Dr. John Gibbs, and Dr. Murthy Saladi show they began discussing Letby as a potential suspect in the deaths, again ignoring the state of the ward or the consultants themselves.

Jayaram brings up air embolism as a possible method of murder.

Late 2016 - Lucy files an official grievance against Breary et al after she is removed from the ward due to repeated accusations from them.

The CQC downgraded the unit after a report found the unit to be understaffed and under-resourced.

Jan 2017 - The hospital review board ruled in Letby's favour. Breary et al are forced to apologise to Letby.

May 2017 - after having to apologise, Breary et al push managers to contact the police.

The police then rely on testimony from Breary et al to form their case, including Jayaram's suspicion of air embolism. They do initially ask various experts for their help, but ultimately decide not to go ahead with them after none of them find evidence of murder.

Dewi then volunteers on the basis that he can "solve the case over a cup of coffee" and that he "knew she was guilty from the start", i.e he is working backwards from murder and looking for evidence to fit his theory. He changes the causes of death frequently during his initial investigations to fit Lucy's shift pattern and comes up with the theory of air embolism after reading police notes on Jayaram's theories.

It wasn't that they all sat around and decided to blame Letby for the hell of it; it was a whole clusterfuck of self-preservation after witnessing a colleague investigated for negligence, an attempt to prevent HR involvement in their own conduct, and a series of poor decision-making by the police.

Edited

One of the things that stuck out for me in that was, Lucy did not qualify to look after high needs babies until 2015, but in 2015 she is already the most senior nurse.
What kind of way is that to run a hospital, and particularly a unit of highly vulnerable patients?
Unless we believe nurses’ experience is utterly irrelevant this is an extreme skills gap and hardly surprising if it should result in patient deaths.

Imdunfer · 23/01/2026 08:13

Firefly1987 · 22/01/2026 22:43

@kkloo maybe she was then

Maybe she was. But they haven't proved it beyond reasonable doubt and that's the basis of British law.

Imdunfer · 23/01/2026 08:16

mids2019 · 23/01/2026 07:09

I think the mob mentality regarding Lucy was absolutely prevalent and maybe public feeling emboldened the police to continue their search into other hospitals given the prominence of the case in the media. It is this job mentality that is slowly fading and perhaps there were those that wanted to shore up Lucy's guilt by somewhat desperately expanding the search for new vicitms.

We note have to face the statistical conundrum of how all the victims were identified in one hospital and not iothers? If Lucy had committed crimes in other hospitals why was the evidence so different from the CoC that no charges could be brought. Should managers at Liverpool be held to account of the police are so convinced of crimes committed there and should they be brought into a public enquiry? If Lucy was perpetrating crimes at another hospital why was no one suspicious there; where were the crusading doctors.

The whole thing is very dodgy.

And here's where we come back to that extraordinary statement by Cheshire Police saying the CPS are wrong and effectively saying that the evidence is as good as last time.

Raising a huge question about how good the evidence actually was last time.

Imdunfer · 23/01/2026 08:21

Oftenaddled · 23/01/2026 01:20

That dignified silence from Dewi Evans sure has been deafening.

(See also: Nicole Bohin, Steven Brearey, Ravi Jayaram, John Gibbs, Paul Hughes and Cheshire Constabulary ... )

No, that theory is demonstrably false.

That would be this deafening dignified silence, would it? Accusing someone questioning the verdicts as "being turned on by her"?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lucy-letby-chief-witness-says-35395476

Glowingup · 23/01/2026 08:27

Imdunfer · 23/01/2026 08:13

Maybe she was. But they haven't proved it beyond reasonable doubt and that's the basis of British law.

Well the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to a jury (it’s the jury that need to be convinced, not you). Twice. With multiple expert witnesses. I know you don’t like their expert witnesses or their testimony and think they’re shit and don’t know what they’re talking about. But they did have expert witnesses. And the jury was convinced.
It’s cases like this that make me so relieved that we have a clear separation of powers and that politicians can’t influence what the courts do when following legal procedure. She has no grounds for appeal and she may get a retrial in several years if the CCRC refers her case back. Hopefully all the Netflix hype will have died down by then and Mark McDonald will have moved on to his next project.

Imdunfer · 23/01/2026 08:34

Firefly1987 · 23/01/2026 01:01

It's nothing to do with not wanting her to be guilty, it's that we're not convinced, this must be the 20th thread you've said this on, you don't WANT to believe that people just aren't convinced by the evidence, you will come up with all sorts of irrational theories rather than accept the obvious one.

Here's another theory then-we've heard nothing but "she didn't do it" from her shady lawyer and the panel he's assembled whilst everyone else who knows she's guilty has kept a dignified silence. That's why half the population have lost their minds over it being a MOJ-gaslighting and brainwashing by that used car salesman of a barrister of hers.

That's why it's going to be wonderful to see the police finally fight back and lay it all out-along with some parents in the new documentary. That'll turn swathes of the population back to thinking she's guilty.

That's why it's going to be wonderful to see the police finally fight back and lay it all out-along with some parents in the new documentary. That'll turn swathes of the population back to thinking she's guilty.

That's the problem with tabloid TV. I have no doubt that the sight of distraught parents will sway some people. I've no doubt it's already swayed you. I would go so far as to say that in your heart you may even feel it would be better that an innocent person stayed in prison than that those poor parents were upset even more.

Emotions should play no part in justice. The facts are the only thing that matter and the facts are that the parents weren't there, they know only what they've been told, and any "evidence" they can give is hearsay, which is not allowed in court.

I know it shocks people but you know those victim statements that people read out in court? They make no difference to the sentence. There's no way they can be allowed to make a difference to the sentence. You cannot sentence two rapists differently because one victim is in absolute pieces in the court room and the other is frozen into showing no emotion at all. The crime is what is sentenced and in Letbys case it is yet to be established beyond reasonable doubt that any crime took place at all.

Piglet89 · 23/01/2026 08:36

Glowingup · 23/01/2026 08:27

Well the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to a jury (it’s the jury that need to be convinced, not you). Twice. With multiple expert witnesses. I know you don’t like their expert witnesses or their testimony and think they’re shit and don’t know what they’re talking about. But they did have expert witnesses. And the jury was convinced.
It’s cases like this that make me so relieved that we have a clear separation of powers and that politicians can’t influence what the courts do when following legal procedure. She has no grounds for appeal and she may get a retrial in several years if the CCRC refers her case back. Hopefully all the Netflix hype will have died down by then and Mark McDonald will have moved on to his next project.

I think those juries got it wrong. Twice. And because of that, a potentially innocent woman will die in prison.

Imdunfer · 23/01/2026 08:40

Glowingup · 23/01/2026 08:27

Well the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to a jury (it’s the jury that need to be convinced, not you). Twice. With multiple expert witnesses. I know you don’t like their expert witnesses or their testimony and think they’re shit and don’t know what they’re talking about. But they did have expert witnesses. And the jury was convinced.
It’s cases like this that make me so relieved that we have a clear separation of powers and that politicians can’t influence what the courts do when following legal procedure. She has no grounds for appeal and she may get a retrial in several years if the CCRC refers her case back. Hopefully all the Netflix hype will have died down by then and Mark McDonald will have moved on to his next project.

Have you ever sat on a jury?

Do you have any comment on the many juries over the years who have been proved to have been wrong?

Have you sat in many courts watching the mind games and tricks that lawyers use professionally to manipulate people? I recommend you do, it's quite fascinating.

Imdunfer · 23/01/2026 08:42

Piglet89 · 23/01/2026 08:36

I think those juries got it wrong. Twice. And because of that, a potentially innocent woman will die in prison.

The second set of convictions will have been easier to get because the jury will have started from a point of her already being guilty.

Swipe left for the next trending thread