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

[mids2019]

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?

I'm not talking about people who just believe she's innocent or just believe she's guilty. I'm talking about the behaviour of some people who go on like absolute lunatics basically because they just can't accept that other people don't agree with them and they are often abusive like what the pp mentioned.

I think many people who believe this may have been a miscarriage of justice would be very open to changing their opinion if concrete evidence came out. I believe that most of the regulars who engage on this topic who believe it may be a miscarriage of justice absolutely would be open to changing their mind because they don't show any traits of being like the people mentioned.

Hmm maybe I'm generalising because I've been on a lot of different platforms (except Tiktok thankfully) we'll have to see if the new documentary changes any minds. Or the inquest-with what looks like another baby we hadn't previously heard about? Much lower bar for guilt than at trial as well.

I think that's a mistake about one of the babies dying at Liverpool. The Telegraph says it's the six babies whom Letby was convicted of killing except Baby A. The Times also says six babies Letby was convicted of killing, and they claim to have seen Mark McDonald's letter to the coroner.

I suspect that early on, someone mixed up born at Liverpool (baby I) with died at Liverpool.

The documentary is highly unlikely to change any minds from thinking this is an unsafe conviction, there will be no new evidence in it as far as I can see.

And if the inquest has a lower bar for guilt then that's not going to change any minds either.

So people not changing their minds based on those things isn't proof that we wouldn't change our minds if there was strong evidence, you have a weird way of looking at this. you already know that we have all seen what was put forward in the first trial, we've read about it, engaged with it, discussed it and so on and the conclusion many have reached is that the verdicts are unsafe, and that this may be a miscarriage of justice. From that perspective no one is going to change their minds and think guilt was proven based on the original evidence that they've already seriously considered and weren't convinced by just because someone says it again in a documentary.

What is the relevance of the documentary changing people’s minds?

@kkloo I never said it'd change your mind.

The documentary is highly unlikely to change any minds from thinking this is an unsafe conviction, there will be no new evidence in it as far as I can see.

Didn't know you were aware exactly what's in it-what the police say, who the parents are and what they say?

And if the inquest has a lower bar for guilt then that's not going to change any minds either.

The optics aren't good for her though. Especially if it's a non-indictment baby.

So people not changing their minds based on those things isn't proof that we wouldn't change our minds if there was strong evidence, you have a weird way of looking at this.

I didn't even say it was! I was just wondering IF it would change a few minds out there.

@MikeRafone er I dunno? It's a new documentary hence a discussion point I would've thought. I'm just musing, I have no idea what's in it as of yet...apparently others do though!

The new documentary is based on the police investigation, so we can have a fairly good idea of what is in it, as much of it was covered at the original trial, is covered in Thirlwell, or has been leaked.

The Panorama documentary only served to have more experts publicly question the evidence used to convict Letby, so I'm not sure why you're so convinced this one will be different.

Can anyone explain to me what these inquests are for?

There's going to be a huge amount of money spent on rehashing what was already gone through in the trial.

Though I guess the shit is going to hit the fan big time if any of the verdicts come back as accidental death, natural death or unlawful killing by a person unknown.

The new documentary might contain additional information/background from the police investigations that wasn’t admissible as evidence - which I guess could make some people think differently.

Their purpose is to amend the original causes of death in line with the trial verdicts. The conclusion has to be unlawful killing because an inquest verdict isn’t allowed to set aside a criminal court guilty verdict.

There is so much evidence that there were no murders, the process may well be adjourned.

It's illegal for the coroner's court to return any verdict except "unlawful killing" if someone has been convicted of homicide or murder, so we won't see a public reversal of the trial outcome here.

But yesterday's article in the Times suggested that the actual inquests, as opposed to the pre inquest hearings next week, will be held back until September, so that the CCRC verdict may come in first.

Well to me it seemed you were implying that unless the documentary and inquest did change some minds that we were all people whose minds would never be changed.

The parents have already said everything in court and at the inquiry, they're not going to have any big reveals for Netflix. The police don't have anything new to say either unless they held stuff back to sell to netflix, which would be very fucked up. If there was any new evidence they would be touting the documentary as containing shocking or damning new evidence, the big sell is the footage they have of her.

This is highly unlikely, that stuff tends to be released by or to the media as soon as there is a guilty verdict.
I would also imagine Netflix would be selling the documentary as 'including the never heard before, damning evidence deemed inadmissible to court'

I think the police would have put any damning new evidence etc in their own documentary, which was pretty thin stuff.

It feels as if the documentary / inquests are now being used the same way the threat of new charges were. But obviously some unknown thing that somebody might say in future can't be used to argue for Lucy Letby's guilt, just as the "more charges" shouldn't have been used that way.

The documentary looks like being a very melodramatic and intrusive retread of existing information, but I suppose we will find out next week.

I guess you won't bother to watch it then!

I would like to see the police lay it all out because the evidence from the trial is being lost in a sea of misinformation. All we've heard is unproven theories from the new panel for the past year or so-no wonder people have had their opinion swayed off guilty (those that didn't follow the trial I mean) the record needs setting straight.

That panel and Mcdonald have been free to put extraordinary claims of her innocence out there and I would like very much to only hear from the police and the parents now and anyone else directly involved. In fact I might mute MM when he comes on. He has nothing new to share, she still hasn't waived privilege. Documentaries sway people all the time because whatever angle they have is like giving people only the prosecution or the defence side. I don't know what this one will be like-but given they've got parents speaking out it's unlikely to be that favourable to her. And if it's new parents we haven't heard from before like it was last time with the memory box? Well the suspicious incidents keep stacking up don't they...

@Firefly1987

In fact I might mute MM when he comes on. He has nothing new to share, she still hasn't waived privilege.

I don't think we know whether she has or hasn't, but she would only need to waive privilege if asked to by the CRCC. She doesn't need to waive full privilege for MM.

There's been far far more than just the information from Lee's panel to challenge Lucy Letby's conviction. Even almost a year ago, at the end of the Thirlwall hearings, there were already 11 grounds listed for the application to the CCRC.

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/document/letter-from-bhandal-law-to-lady-justice-thirlwall-dated-17-march-2025/

He still has no idea why she didn't call any expert witnesses so he's clueless. Why should anyone listen to him? He literally has NO idea whether she's guilty or not!

This is why we shouldn't have professionals on juries.

If you think that not waiving privilege means that Lucy Letby can't discuss her defence team strategy with Mark McDonald, you have that wrong.

@Oftenaddled you don't know she has though?

Is that the podcast saying that again?
Of course he knows why, he just doesn't need to tell the general public why.

@kklooahahaha at Mark Mcdonald keeping his mouth shut about anything 😆😆😆
I thought you were the one demanding your high bar of evidence be met at every point yet happy to believe Mark just "knows" without any evidence whatsoever. Just because it helps you to believe LL is innocent.

You were talking about rare and unlikely events the other day, the chances of someone taking on a case like this without insisting on knowing the trial strategy would be miniscule.

Not sure why you're laughing, it just makes you look silly more than anything, obviously he's not going to blurt out her previous trial strategy to the media at this point 😂

I have a high bar for evidence when it comes to locking people up in prison, when it comes to other things the bar is just at common sense level.

You were talking about rare and unlikely events the other day, the chances of someone taking on a case like this without insisting on knowing the trial strategy would be miniscule.

@kkloo he's not your average barrister though. He takes on no hoper cases and tries to convince the public they're really innocent via PR campaigns instead of remaining professional-god knows for what reason he feels the need to do this.

Not sure why you're laughing, it just makes you look silly more than anything, obviously he's not going to blurt out her previous trial strategy to the media at this point 😂

He can tell us he knows why but can't divulge it-he hasn't even done that so common sense would say he doesn't know wouldn't it.