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

Her case won't be referred any time soon because the CCRC has only sixteen part-time commissioners, working as little as one day a week, with a backlog of about 113 cases.

All of these cases (except in exceptional circumstances) will already have been refused an appeal - it's the CCRC's function to look at new evidence and argument, not to re-examine procedure like the appeal court.

So delay isn't a sign of weakness in a case - it's built into a system which guarantees your case less than a working day's attention a month.

To go back to the original question: I cannot see how this case can be retried. There never was any evidence of intentional harm in any of the cases or anything to link the deaths of the babies to LL in particular.

If protocols within the CJS had been followed including multi-disciplinary panel to assess thoroughly each case, and the police investigation referred to the Special Crime and Counter-Terrorism Division in London as it should - the case would never have come to court.

There is literally nothing to try.

For those wondering if there were lots of death when Lucy Letby wasn't on duty. I asked chatGPT and based on the Thirlwall enquiry it came up with this-

Evidence presented to the Thirlwall Inquiry indicated that:

• 13 babies died on the Countess of Chester neonatal unit between June 2015 and June 2016.
• Letby was reportedly present for 10 of those 13 deaths.
• She was on the preceding shift for 2 additional babies who later died.
• She was not connected to 1 of the 13 deaths.

There were also 4 further deaths after babies had been transferred to other hospitals, and Letby was not present at those deaths.

was she on shift at the point of collapse for the babies that died elsewhere?

Yes—but with some important nuance. Based on inquiry reporting and media coverage:
There were 4 babies who later died after being transferred to other hospitals.
Lucy Letby was on shift at the time those babies initially collapsed or deteriorated on the Countess of Chester neonatal unit, before transfer.
She was not physically present at the time of their deaths at the other hospitals.
So technically, she was present for the initial medical events that led to their transfers, but not present for the final deaths.

So there was only one death she wasn't connected to AT ALL and possibly because that baby died before it ever went onto her unit. She's even connected to the babies who died at other hospitals.

@OftenaddledWell yes, and they aren’t quick! That’s why anyone posting here thinks there’s compelling evidence - think again. Plus the review can only recommend, not actually ensure anythjng happens within the judicial system. So I think it’s better to wait for the outcome, however long it takes. Otherwise it’s just pure speculation.

In regard to your point that it should have been referred to the special crime and counter terrorism division I remember when I looked it up it seemed unclear about whether that rule applied at the time, or if they had just brought it in now, presumably as a result of the LL case because it would seem like a huge coincidence if not.

But either way it's that branch of the CPS who would have to bring a retrial and we already know that they ruled out more charges even though the Chesire police thought they met the standard for evidence.

I genuinely can't see how they could bring a case.

There's no connection between how compelling the evidence for referral is and how long the CCRC takes (though I suppose a rejection could be quick if the evidence is truly rubbish and obviously so). The process is, simply, very slow. The amount of evidence, the number of points argued, the extent to which external experts would need to be consulted, would all influence the length of the process.

Some commentators do speak as if the CCRC will refer as soon as they find one compelling reason. That's incorrect. The CCRC needs to articulate the grounds on which it has referred for the Court of Appeal, and to be explicit about which it has accepted and which it has rejected.

Lucy Letby's case is of course 14 different cases, with numerous grounds for referral submitted. With only 16 part-time commissioners working on over 100 cases, and with the obvious need for referral to external experts, it's likely to take a long time. But that has nothing to do with how compelling the evidence is.

I read them ages ago, I mean I'll read them again but they won't convince me she's not guilty!

A lot of people misunderstand things in this case like the amount of people who think "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"-as if a baby killer should have more of a chance to get off than someone accused of a low level crime. No she's held to the same standard as everyone else accused of a crime. She doesn't get special consideration because her crimes are the worst of the worst.

No one who knows she's guilty thinks there's reasonable doubt in spades. That's what her PR company have convinced you of. It's not reality.

There never was any evidence of intentional harm in any of the cases or anything to link the deaths of the babies to LL in particular

The handover notes she kept, the internet searches for dates and family members, don't link her to those babies' deaths? They're not proof she killed the babies of course but they are an indication that LL at least felt a link. Is that all fine and normal? Do we think that should be ignored?

Chat GPT is right about the first half there (on shift for 10 of 13 deaths). That's not surprising, given that these deaths were clustered mostly at times with multiple ICU babies on the ward, when Lucy Letby was called in. It's a case where correlation is not causation, as her manager repeatedly pointed out

ChatGPT appears to have hallucinated the other half of the information. Thirlwall hasn't given data on who was on duty before these four children were transferred, apart from baby K. Perhaps you could ask it a follow up question and request a source?

I think Baby O had their first deterioration in the hours before LL came on shift.

If there's no case to try, then she needs her conviction quashed.

Nobody has suggested that on this thread. I'm sure ordinary (relevant, scientifically rigorous) evidence would do just fine.

Extraordinary claims like, she died of a phenomenon that has never been known to kill anyone, this rash from medical phenomenon A causes phenomenon B, she killed this child by unknown means and nobody standing around the cot noticed it, the pathologist who actually saw the body failed to notice an injury with the force of a car crash, we eliminated all natural causes from the medical notes alone, unlike the pathologists who actually saw the bodies? Yes, they'd require extraordinary evidence.

@Firefly1987 Have you really managed to read 35 PE reports, and the New Yorker article, and seen that 14 international experts have expressed huge doubts about the case, as well as many other experts and reporters at broadsheets, and none of that has raised a single doubt for you? Or made you think that the trial could have been unfair and badly managed? SO much has come out that the jury didn't hear. We only started to hear after lengthy reporting restrictions were lifted.

Some of that is accurate and some isn’t. It would be better to use the hospital’s own data which is in the public domain.

How do you explain the 6 deaths LL was not charged with? They are a cluster in themselves.

It's literally factual-she IS a baby killer. What would you prefer?

They only brought so many to court-ones they thought they could get a conviction on. It may be she was there for the rest also but they had more complex problems and it was harder to prove harm.

Yes because it's THAT obvious she's guilty. They're no better than the experts that testified in court. Everything that could've been a possible explanation was already gone over with a fine tooth comb. If people think the jury didn't hear everything then I dread to think how long they expect a trial to last. 5 years maybe.

Baby P as well, and Baby I had several collapses when Lucy Letby wasn't on shift, including at least one at another hospital.

I haven't read the court transcripts, so I don't know what was examined during the trial.

When you see the reports on these children's conditions, it really doesn't seem necessary to invent murders to explain their deaths.

Can all those fine brains really be so wrong, though? There were 14 doctors on that panel (I think). There does seem to be an expert consensus and same in the broadsheets. It gives me pause. If LL had called defence experts, she might not have been convicted. The jury didn't hear the other side of the arguments.

Legally she's considered one.
That's not the same as being literally factual.

People sometimes assume all of the necessary detail was covered because the trial was long. Of course, the trial was dealing with 22 separate incidents, so it was always going to be long. But the expert witnesses were often pretty sloppy, and of course the judge excluded all sorts of information from consideration. Even before you consider the evidence that is new since the trial, there is no way you can claim the jury heard anything like the full story.

I can't think why people,believe she is innocent. She isn't. Hopefully all this fuss will die dowm and she will stay in prison where she belongs, babies in her care kept dying unexpectedly. Doctors grew suspicious and no wonder.