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

Can't see how they could. Even if they find neonatologists willing to act as new experts, nobody's going to repeat the claims Dewi made about Shoo Lee's research that were then debunked, for example. The defence would also look very different this time, and the prosecution would know that, so they'd also need to factor that into their tactics. Even if they decided to not question defence experts, that still has to form part of a strategy.

Does anyone know whether the defence would still be bound by the constraints the original judge imposed, in a retrial?

I wasn’t arguing that “extraordinary charges require extraordinary proof”: the jury must be sure she committed these crimes.

It is clear from this post that you don’t understand the criminal standard of proof either.

Jesus. Again, standard of proof.

I do not (and the jury did not) have to believe she’s innocent. I just have to be unsure she’s guilty. There’s not strong enough evidence to be SURE she’s guilty.

This may well be the greatest miscarriage of justice of our time. I don’t think she will get a retrial because there’s no way it would be a fair one. I think she will be exonerated but it’s going to take years to go through the relevant processes. And it’ll lead to significant changes in the law/judicial system because if she is innocent, this cannot be allowed to happen again.

No they wouldn't be.
A new judge may well decide to impose the same constraints, but the same issues would have be argued again and then the new judge would decide.

Have you noticed, via the medical data presented at trial, how bad the doctors were at inserting lines? This was also flagged on the RCPCH report.

What can badly inserted lines cause? Air embolisms. Although it should be noted that no air embolisms were noted at the time, nor did any pathology report note the presence of one. Dr McPartland later reviewed the pathology findings and further concluded there was no evidence of air embolism.

It is astonishing that the medical expert who was present and expecting to be called was not asked to take the stand. It is astonishing that a janitor was called instead. I'm not sure if this says something about Lucy or about possible influences upon her legal team. But it is easy to accept that the scientific community weren't aware of how their research was being used at the time of the trial - these are very busy people carrying immense responsibility and scattered globally.

Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, because most such claims without such evidence are false. If you claim that someone has an ultra-rare disease based on a test, the claim is likely false unless the test is ultra-specific. E.g. if 1 in a million people have the disease, and a test that is wrong only 1% of the time says you have it, there's just a 1-in-10,000 chance that you actually have the disease. Because, if your test is wrong 1% of the time, when you test a million people, 999,999 of them won't have the disease, but your test will be positive for 1% of those, i.e. for about 10,000. So of the people who test positive (10,000 falsely and 1 correctly), only 1 actually has the disease. To be 99% sure you have the disease, you need a test that is wrong no more than once in a hundred million people tested.

Since hospital collapses are ultra-rarely murder attempts, only an ultra-specific "test" can give confidence that you found one, i.e. a test that practically never says it's a murder attempt when it's not. If the test is "expert X says it's a murder attempt", the only way to be sure that they'll practically never say so wrongly, is to have them review records blindly without knowledge of suspect, and confirm that they practically never flag events which the suspect couldn't have caused. That confirmation is missing from the Letby case.

@kkloowhat do you mean? What constraints?

Sorry, I quoted the wrong post!

weird test results are really common in medicine

...and when you trawl through many test results of many kinds from many babies, looking for any weird results (not just for insulin), finding some is not unlikely. There are many ways weird results can arise -- testing errors, incompletely understood physiology, missing data that could help explain the results but was never gathered. When there are many possibilities for something to happen, finding that some of them came to pass is not surprising.

@NameChangeMay2026 analogized the evidence to "smoke", as in "no smoke without fire", but that's not the right analogy. Smoke is one specific thing, and the chance of seeing that specific thing without fire is small. By contrast, "weird test result" is non-specific, and the chance of seeing one of many manifestations of that, somewhere in a large data trawl, is not small.

I wasn’t arguing that “extraordinary charges require extraordinary proof”: the jury must be sure she committed these crimes.

I know you weren't but I've heard it a lot so I'm not the only one misunderstanding things. The jury were sure she committed the crimes! Just because you can't see it doesn't mean they were wrong.

She wasn't falsely accused. And we don't know how we'd react if we were guilty either but people are pretending the note can't possibly be a confession. Even though none of us are serial killers(!) so how would we know?

That saying isn't a legal rule though. Like I said before I want a system that is fair to everyone no matter what crime they're accused of. I don't want the worst of the worst alleged criminals getting off because people want a higher standard of proof for their guilt.

You're obviously a whizz at maths and it's impressive, but she is NOT going to get out because people think she's a special case.

Going forward it doesn't matter what the jury thought or not, their part in this is over.

At this point the CCRC will be looking at the evidence instead, and if they conclude that certain evidence shouldn't have been admitted, or that evidence was flawed or that relevant evidence was withheld or new evidence changes renders it unsafe, or all of the above then the issue is whether the verdict remains safe.

And if they don't will you accept it? Or just keep bleating on about how everyone involved in the process was wrong?

If the CCRC refuse to refer it on then no I won't accept it, there's too many issues with the case and the evidence. I'm also certain that there will be outrage and even more experts getting behind the next submission.

Won’t accept it 😂 listen to yourself! What the hell do you think you could do about it? You’d have no choice to accept it.

Have you thought about getting another hobby beyond being a cheerleader for a serial murderer of babies?

I was asked if I would accept it.

I never said I could do anything about it, just that I wouldn't accept it.

I think you just don't know what the word means 😂😂

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accept

3 c c
: to recognize as true : believe
refused to accept the explanation

Have you ever thought of buying a dictionary? You might also want to enrol in some kind of course to develop your thinking and debating skills so you don't resort to the same tired and lazy arguments.

That saying isn't a legal rule though

It's a basic rule of reasoning, but also common sense. If I say "I saw a tiger in my yard today", you'll want more proof before you believe me, than if I had said "I saw a cat". For the same reason, if I say "I saw a serial killer nurse", you should want more proof before you believe me, than if I had said "I saw a pickpocket". It's not because of special solicitude for people who commit worse crimes. It's because worse crimes are more rare, so a claim that you saw one is more implausible on its face. Doesn't mean it's impossible, but does require more proof: like with tiger vs. cat.

Also, a wrongful conviction for serial baby murder would be a worse injustice than a wrongful conviction for petty theft, which gives a separate reason to demand more proof in a murder case.

@Dolphin37 by that logic it would be far worse to let a serial baby killer go free than a petty thief so the thief should require a higher level of evidence for their guilt to be proven. Because they're not a danger to society.

I guess that's why they made it fair for everyone and none of this "extraordinary claims" business. I'm not going to get wrongly sent down for being a thief whilst Lucy Letby child murderer goes free. That is NOT a fair system.

She had no defence because there was no defence. If there was a defence the lawyers would have put the defence case forward. Called witnesses. They didn't.

@Viviennemary @Firefly1987
So am I right in thinking that you disregard the pathologists who carried out the autopsies and the expert panel that claim there are no suspicious deaths?
That all of the evidence that has come to light after the trials is inaccurate?
What is the key information that makes you believe she is guilty without any doubt?
Apart from " she was found guilty"
Many, many commentators are concerned that this case has highlighted flaws in our judicial system that need correcting.
For all of us.

The opinions of people who have jumped on the bandwagon and piped up afterwards is not “evidence”. Evidence is what is led in court and crucially subject to cross examination. As PP said, LL had a high quality defence, and rightfully so, paid by us, also rightfully so, led by His Majesty’s Counsel. There is no obligation on a defence to lead evidence, but if the so called “evidence” that people are wanging on about now, was so relevant, why was it not led then? Either because her counsel were incompetent. Or because there was no such evidence. Or because it would not have stood up to cross examination. I think the latter 2 of those explanations are way more likely than the former.

Blimey. I’ve read some codswallop on here but this takes the biscuit.