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

No, I followed the trial at the time and nothing since then has made me feel it was unsound, that any alternative narratives would hold up in court, or that she was poorly defended. There has been a sort of whitewashing since.

What evidence made it feel sound for you?

All the evidence given in court @Nyungnyung?

Anyone who has worked in this sort setting would know that the minute they relied on swipe card data to build a case, they were on very dodgy ground.

Do you feel all the global experts challenging the medical evidence makes it seem unsound? And if not, what would make that evidence seem unsound to you?

I know LL and was amazed she was arrested, charged and then found guilty. It's just so unbelievable to me that she could have harmed newborn babies.

Clearly I followed the trial and maybe I'd feel differently had I not known her, but I don't think I could have convicted beyond reasonable doubt. Some of the information that has come to light since has only made me more concerned there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Even if there was to be another trial there can't be anyone in the world who won't have some bias having read and heard so much about the case.

Zero, hopefully.

I don’t believe there’s a minimum time per se, but court and CCRC backlogs may mean it is that long.

Does it worry you that so many very qualified people have subsequently come forward and criticised the evidence given in court? I think this should concern everyone

I think she’s guilty and she’ll only get a new trial if it’s legally warranted. Some people seem to think the criminal justice system operates like voting on Britain’s Got Talent. The views of the general public, who get most of their information from TikTok, and vote for likes of Brexit and Reform, thankfully don’t get a say.

Who thinks that?

The procecution discounted any deaths when sge wasn't on shift (and even got that wrong).

If she said "back with a bang" it could refer to her greivence against the consultants.

I agree.

Yes, you're right in theory, but there was no other nurse who was on duty for all those deaths and collapses.

Yes, I had thought that the shift rota showed all the deaths and collapses, but it doesn't. I do not know how such a bad piece of documentation happened. Apparently there are quite a few more that she wasn't present for, as well as quite a few more that she was.

It's such a mystery.

I would love her to be innocent. It would make so much more sense for it to be a string of coincidences instead of this incredibly ordinary, normal-seeming person actually being a monster.

Tbh not that unbeliable. People have done stranger things in history.

I still think she was a scapegoat for a broken NHS. I have thought that from the beginning and as a nurse (not anymore in NHS) I am not surprised if she was.

She seems like a very sweet, extremely normal person. I mean, you never know about people.

I don’t know about ‘thankfully’ actually.

Of course, it isn’t like Britain’s got Talent or Brexit but the judicial system (and the CCRC is part of that) is something any one of us could rely on at any point, whether as the accused of a crime or as a victim, and the truth is paramount.

As far as I can see, the CCRC operates largely out of sight. Prisoners don’t have a voice: there’s a ‘no smoke without fire’ attitude and someone protesting they are innocent is largely ignored because, well, guilty people say that too. The Andrew Malkinson case wasn’t widely reported in the press (as much as I can remember anyway) and he was shouting into the wind for seventeen years trying to get the CCRC to deal with it.

Public pressure and public outrage really can make things happen (see also the post office scandal.) I have no desire for it to be handed to the great British public but I also am uneasy with this suggestion that the public are just a bit too dim to be allowed to understand the inner workings of the CCRC and leave it to the experts, dear.

That business about the Ibiza holiday is just sensationalism. The last death she was accused of causing before the Ibiza holiday was in October 2015. The holiday and the next death she was accused of causing were in June 2016. It's not a very strong pattern when you look at it that way. But the prosecution liked a bit of drama.

That death after the Ibiza holiday was baby O. Baby O had a deterioration the night before she came back to work after the Ibiza holiday. The medical expert for the prosecution originally identified this as the suspicious incident, but later he and / or the police dropped it from their investigation and focused only on times when Lucy Letby was on shift.

Back with a bang - her friend told her how hectic the unit was so she said it looked like she'd be back with a bang. People can twist almost anything if they try, but the obvious intention was to say, it's going to be busy, not to hint that she would kill some of the patients

Were they relying on that? I hadn't heard that. I thought it was because the deaths followed LL around, and because of the handover notes, and the lying about the shredder, and being caught with or near babies who were collapsing even when she wasn't their designated nurse...I mean, there was a huge volume of circumstantial evidence. (The medical evidence has no consensus among experts at all.)

Were you even in court yourself to hear it directly? Or do you mean filtered through the medium of a salacious commercial podcast or newspaper?

Do you understand what leads to unfair trials and wrongful convictions?

If the deaths were a result of natural causes or poor care, you wouldn't expect there to be another nurse on duty for all of them to explain them.

Oh dear. I think you need to finish reading the Private Eye reports.

From memory the rota and stats were devised by dewi evans, and when examined by the [rocecution specialist, the specialist was removed from the case.

As for the door swipe data, not only was it wrong but there was another door that was regularly accessed by members of staff.

I’m a paediatric nurse - I followed her trial and don’t believe she is guilty.

I didn’t work at Chester but have worked in areas that are unsafe and can see how having a scapegoat to excuse widespread failings can happen.

This is not only a travesty for Lucy, but also for all those families who believed someone has been held accountable and in reality they have not. They have been let down in the worst possible way and now it’s compounded by allowing the unsafe conviction.

Nobody wins here I’m not sure how any of this can be made better. It’s a shameful disgrace and a stain on our society.