To think that Lucy Letby will get a new trial?

[NameChangeMay2026]

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

I disagree; I think that carrying a little medical kit on a night out is just the sort of thing an eager new nursing student would do. Assume it contained plaster, bandage, aspirin and such, not a big medical bag!

I totally disagree about MK, too. That crime scene was covered in blood. It would have been impossible for Knox not to leave her DNA all over. They have a culprit, Guede. I didn't think that anyone thought Knox was involved anymore.

I have read as much as I can on the case. I'm not just explaining things away without having thought and made sure I knew everything I could, including carefully reading anything that opposes my views.

When you say "explains away", it sounds as if you mean I'm just making excuses? But I think it's reasonable to say - sometimes miscarriages of justice happen. This could be one. We have more information on it than on almost any other case in British history. It has to be okay to look and say, this doesn't make sense. Something that is murder when they think the nurse is on shift isn't murder when they realise she wasn't? Somehow this nurse managed to murder children in plain sight, surrounded by other medics, without triggering alarms? Consultants and pathologists are satisfied with cause of death - until the consultants change their minds?

The problem is that the closer you look, that worse this case gets. Do I believe Lucy Letby is innocent? I don't believe that there were any murders. The prosecution case is too illogical, too unscientific, and too dishonest for me to have any confidence in their exclusion of natural causes.

How premature were they at the time? Were they in an NICU?

Yes, both mine cried and cried and cried for hours as newborns - ‘witching hour(s).

DD3 has carried a first aid kit since she was about 13. Her rucksack is a 'go bag' and she has very useful stuff. She does have ASD and OCD though, so they probably influence her decision.

Premature babies cry a lot. Why are you suggesting they don't?

I don’t think people who carry first aid kits generally murder numerous babies, no.

No - he has been able to rely on new published evidence as regards air embolism, and that is only a small part of his panel's refutation of the prosecution case anyway

Er because the expert explained why they don't? But clearly you know better. Do you work in an NICU?

I'd never heard about the medical kit before. I think things like this just show the lack of real evidence. No one brings up little things like this when discussing most other serial killers. Normally it's actual evidence that points to guilt of murders. It's easy to put a spin on anything and make it look strange and odd. I have a small first aid kit - granted I have children but it's not that weird a thing that it would in anyway point to some personality disorder.

I also don't see how being Italian or being in the place a murder happened makes you more of an expert. The Italian police looked like fools for believing all that satanic nonsense without any evidence - maybe the locals don't like that and want them to be correct. It's easy to hate on foreigners.

But I'm objecting to him saying NO baby cries for 30 minutes unless they're in pain and they stop immediately the pain stops.

It so clearly isn't true and is sensational, not something that is desirable in someone who is claiming to be an expert witness.

And we don't know that she was the ONLY nurse present at dozens of deaths/ collapses because they didn't show the full statistics. They hand picked deaths/ collapses that they knew she had been there, and they didn't show anyone else's shifts.
That's a bit like deciding that it must be a music teacher in a school is responsible for all the missing stationery in the school by only looking at the missing stationery in music lessons.
Statistically incorrect.

No, but I can read the wealth of scientific studies that contradict Dr Evans on this point.

He was making it up to suit the case, basically.

Fucking hell. People seem to think they can judge whether a baby is dying of natural causes vs murder from the sound of their cry? Wow. Terrifying. I really hope I never stand accused of something based on "evidence" like that.

So if Evans is so useless, how come the defence couldn't just wipe the floor with him? He might be a crap prosecution expert (or he might not) she's still guilty and couldn't refute anything he said.

Edited to correct a word

If she is innocent, i would eat my hat. No idea if she will get a retrial.

I believe she is guilty. I can’t find any other explanation. You can say the unit was badly run etc, but so are most other NHS units.

Here's the information on Baby E from Dr Shoo Lee's panel, based on their study of his medical notes and material from the court case

Baby 5 was at high risk because he was preterm, had twin-twin transfusion with oligohydramnios, and his antenatal ultrasound showed reversed end diastolic flow and dilated small bowel loops. This meant blood was being sucked out of the fetus at the end of each cardiac cycle, and the intestines were likely damaged before birth. The 2 episodes of massive gastrointestinal haemorrhage were most likely due to in-utero hypoxia causing stomach or small intestinal ulceration, and erosion into an intestinal blood vessel; or to a vascular abnormality like Dieulafoy’s lesion, which can cause life- threatening hemorrhage. His 25% blood volume loss was likely an underestimate because more was likely lost in the intestines. Emergency transfusion with group O negative blood should have been immediately given earlier during resuscitation. Since 20% blood loss causes shock, and Baby 5 lost much more, this was fatal.

The baby never had a postmortem because his consultant advised the parents that this wasn't necessary.

Do you think it is reasonable to convict a nurse of murder for being there while this was happening? And if the only reason to suspect her is she was there - at work - and she was there for other deaths - because she worked dangerous shifts - how could she ever prove her innocence?

We don't know that she was present, we know that she was on shift.

Also, why have you added numbers to the amount of deaths?

@Oftenaddled if their twin brother inexplicably collapsed from insulin poisoning-yes

But dozens of babies have indeed died unnecessarily at other NHS units (and that's the cases we know about). So why not this one?

Because none of the other doctors in the other hospitals were suspicious a nurse was causing the deaths. Just proves there was no need to ever pin hospital negligence on a nurse.

If her name was Olufemi she wouldn’t be getting thread after thread on MN about whether she deserves a new trial, I can tell you that much

So you don't think the case of baby E could stand up on its own?

(Scientists have proposed natural explanations for the insulin test results since the trial. Both twins were vulnerable following a complex pregnancy and premature birth, of course, so it's not surprising that both had medical crises)

How could you possibly not be moved by the opinion of an independent panel of experts regarding the reasons why these babies tragically passed away? The deaths were not, in their opinion, suspicious. Consequently it wouldn't matter if Lucy had the opportunity or not. There is nothing to explain except why that hospital was taking on babies this premature without appropriately experienced consultants on the ward and why the ward was under staffed and failing to meet basic hygiene requirements.

It is a very sad technicality that the legal definition of what constitutes new evidence does not equal a more informed interpretation of evidence that was misrepresented the first time.

I would imagine that a heavily medicated person who had been through what Lucy has been through would be very easy for a barrister to make mincemeat of.

The deaths were cherry picked. Circumstances that were not initially thought to be suspicious were later reviewed as suspicious. An eye witness testimony from a doctor was later found to be in direct contradiction with an account he gave in an email.

I'm not sure what aspect of that satisfies you that justice has been done.

Right, so to address racism and inequality we permit miscarriages of justice in order to ensure fairness?

Sorry - I hate posts like this. I don’t seek to deny racism is a real problem; I do strongly object to the suggestion that we therefore shut up if a potential miscarriage of justice happens to someone white.

I hope that the attention her case is getting will highlight problems with the expert witness system, the Court of Appeal and the CCRC, and help others who have been unjustly convicted.

Meanwhile, there's simply far more information out there on her case than on others. It's a pity it takes an unusual situation to precipitate that. I believe that all trial transcripts (appropriately redacted,) should be freely available for scrutiny