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

TBF the defence did have their own expert, and he was happy to answer questions in court.
We don't knpw why the defence didn't put him forward.
But even if he was brought forward, it would be hard to disprove theories that are not based in actual evidence just hypotheses

A few reasons. Hired gobs cost money. They also tend to have to be retired gobs, given the amount of time they have to spend researching evidence/in court.

tbf Evans wasn't the only expert and he didn't speak in some of the cases. There were others but he was the main prosecution witness.

It's difficult to find experts to defend someone accused of killing babies. Given that the main health employer in this country is the NHS, effectively being on the "opposite side" could impact your future job prospects. That can mean the defence has to look abroad for willing experts, which costs even more.

Have a look at the Jolly Contrarian https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=The_Letby_collection for another legal perspective.

Well there was also Sandie Bohin and Martin Ward Platt who agreed with Evans. Then we have a pathologist and an insulin expert all agreeing this was deliberate harm.

To think all these people came to the conclusion of deliberate harm at the trial, they'd have to have been out to get her and there's no reason to believe that. They also covered things at trial like possible birth injuries and bacteria and they were ALL ruled out-though it hasn't stopped the new panel trying to claim that's what happened instead. It's why I can't take the new experts seriously.

I think there’s plenty of reasons to believe that, actually.

I hope she gets a retrial and is compelled to call defence witnesses even though Lucy herself didn't want to-then when they get destroyed under cross-examination people might finally accept she's guilty.

The same sandie bohin that had 28 complaints against her?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/13/lucy-letby-trial-doctor-sandie-bohin-witness-doubts/?fbclid=IwY2xjawSG1L5leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETB4Z3ZMWFlwQ3VtT2tCU2hRc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHgz-hg6l55Uhnfs8LglqNWE0NVSvIuiKeIr_zETOqnD6oC_a_fJFCy8M6C13_aem_ln_5GoVYhRFdM1FmY-_Kqg

There were numerous expert witnesses for both the prosecution and defence, though? The defence just did not call theirs. That would have been Letby’s call to make, although she was well advised not to.

If the defence experts had testified, a lot of the theories we are seeing on this thread would have been thoroughly dismantled and laid to rest in the first place.

This is it, the problems are systemic. It's all very piecemeal. You can only choose from who you can choose from. Lots of experts understandably don't want to get involved, have other things they'd rather do. That's not an easy solve.

Being good at your job, even being the best qualified to comment, doesn't mean you're also a good performer in court. I suspect I'm not the only person with experience of expert witnesses who's also aware of some of them having managed to piss a judge off, for example. And both the prosecution and defence have to put their case as best they can, so they do have to consider these factors. Even though it might result in the jury being less well informed than they would ideally be.

Unfortunately the other experts called alongside Dr Evans did not work independently of him. They reviewed his work (Bohin) or used his reports instead of the medical notes (Marnerides).

Hindmarsh, the expert witness who spoke on insulin, gave the broadly received wisdom of the time when he said that the insulin test results indicated poisoning. But they couldn't connect this with Lucy Letby in particular without guesswork on the interactions of plastics and insulin, on which Hindmarsh admitted he had no evidence. The science has since moved on. His assertions were shaky then and are disproven now.

And isn't it telling that a panel of experts have come forward - unpaid I understand - to state that there were NO murders.
This is what swayed my opinion. They have nothing to gain and a whole lot of credibility to lose.

Bohin didn’t come to the conclusions independently though, she just agreed with Evans

Which is something I hadn't realised initially. I assumed, and shouldn't have, that they were independent of each other. I wonder how many others have done the same.

I've read many times that the defence only had the plumber.

Well presumably she didn't have a gun held to her head or was in on some huge conspiracy to put an innocent nurse away so was free to disagree with Evans. People will pick holes in anything that doesn't suit their narrative.

That's the only defence witness they put on the stand-it was clearly too risky to have any medical experts what with her being guilty as hell and all.

You must realise that doesn't make any sense given all very qualified medical experts that have now gone on the record to say none of the babies were murdered.

No, no she won't. The idea that she is innocent is a weird 'miscarriage of justice' fantasy that her internet fans are trying to manifest against the long evidence of two trials.

The appeals process is set in law, killers who are never getting out have nothing to lose by exhausting it. Looking at you Jeremy Bamber.

Yeah and how many of them have been cross-examined in court?

It’s not just some randoms on the internet though is it? There are quite a lot of medical experts and reputable journalists who believe the verdicts aren’t sound.

If you continue your Private Eye reading, you'll find lots of discussion of this. From what we have heard from Mike Hall (defence expert whose reports Lucy Letby's defence used in cross-examining, he was prepared to take the stand. We can tell there was nothing damning in these reports because Myers, Lucy Letby's barrister, offered to put them into evidence when he asked the judge to throw out Dewi Evans's evidence. The judge refused.

Why not call Mike Hall to the stand, then? All of the indications are that he was ready to dispute everything except the insulin poisoning. He has spoken to the press, and Private Eye has printed summaries of the pre-trial expert witness conference.
At the time of that conference, Lucy Letby's defence seems not to have known of any natural explanation for two children's insulin levels. Since then, scientists have suggested a natural cause. But at that time, putting no experts up might have seemed the better strategic choice than having them admit they couldn't explain the insulin.

Yes - there's a handy list of named, relevant experts who have spoken on the case in public at https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Lucy_Letby:_those_experts_in_full

The overwhelming majority have expressed doubts about the case.

The jury spent nearly a year of their lives listening to all the evidence, none of these experts have spent this much time looking at the evidence-they couldn't have.

Well, one thing's for sure - it will be extremely interesting to see which way the CCRC leaps.

I don’t think the time length is beneficial. If anything, I find it hard to comprehend how lay people could spend a year listening to evidence and be able to fully remember it and evaluate it. That’s a crazy ask for anyone.

No. She’s a very disturbed calculating murderer.