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

So you'll be hoping Jamie Varley and John McGowan-Fazakerley walk free as well then?

I think people think that these cases may need to be tried with a special jury with medical experience or in another way, and that if they're going to make such radical claims about the methods of harm or murder then they really need to have to back it up with a stronger team of experts, there has to be more of a consensus and wild theories really need to be tested properly.

I think what most people are hoping for is that the judicial system lives up to its name.

It really is as straightforward as that.

No. Other things you’ve posted on this thread have made clear you have a very sparse knowledge of criminal process and procedure.

The experts who work with the defence have seen all the relevant medical records that the prosecution witnesses saw.

Why wouldn't they? You need to understand that the prosecution can't hoard evidence. and keep it secret. They are obliged to share all relevant material with the defence.

There is the problem of obstetrics records: neither they nor the prosecution have seen these. Evans did not consider them necessary. McDonald's team of experts disagree and hope to obtain them.

And yet somehow I'm still on the side of the criminal process whereas you are not!

According to Neena Modi, the prosecution experts had not seen all the records - Evans, yes, Bohin, not sure, but the others were sent only extracts by Evans for their comment.

Q. Yes. Did it surprise you that you were not sent a single verbatim description given by any of the eyewitnesses of any of the discolouration seen on any of the children in this case?
A. I was only given something that was new and so I did my work. I don't know how the court works, so I can't comment on that.
Q. Yes, but following on from the point that you accepted, that in order to give a robust expert opinion, you need all of the relevant information, do you find it surprising that you have not been sent a single verbatim eyewitness account of what was seen?
A. I was only asked – the instructions that were given were to comment on the witness statements. Like I said, I (inaudible) forwards, only the old ones. Yes. So I believe this was (inaudible).
Q. Dr Lee, you are not answering the question – all right? So we will try again. Were you surprised that you were not sent a single verbatim description given by any eyewitness?
A. No, not surprised because, as I say, I don't know how these things from the court. So I presume what happens and what (inaudible).
Q. But I was not asking you about what happens in court. I was asking you what information you need to provide a robust expert opinion. That has got nothing to do with court. So, would you answer the question from that point of view, please?
A. I think it would have been proper to have been given access to the records.
Q. Were you given an explanation for why you were not given access to the records?
A. No, I wasn't but I didn't ask.
Q. Why did you not ask?
A. I presumed that was all there was. Like I said, I don't know how a court works.
Q. And you were happy to come to court knowing that you did not have all the information? Is that fair?
A. I was given the material to review, and I was happy to come to court because I had sufficient information to comment.

Thanks, yes, I remember seeing that too. I suppose it would have been better if I had written that the prosecution had access to all the records, and Evans and Bohin had seen them all. Certainly Marnerides stated during the trial that he had not looked at the full records but had been led by Evans

Bohin said in a recent interview that she read through all of the records, but only after reading Evans's reports.

What? What do you even mean by this? That you agree with the outcome? You trust the process? How does this argument even begin to engage with the challenge I’ve put forward?

Maybe your just blindly trusting the criminal court process is the problem. Court cases are run by humans and humans make mistakes

Another issue I don’t think has been raised on the thread is that appeal courts are VERY reluctant to overturn first instance decisions, as they don’t want to question their judicial colleagues’ reasoning.

Probably too reluctant.

You need to include information on where that quotation comes from

It's from Lucy Letby's application to appeal her first trial, in 2024.

After this application failed, Lee proposed to convene a panel to examine the medical records (and other testimony) and produce reports.

His panel published summary findings in 2025, and that's when reports by this panel and the UK panel were delivered to the CCRC.

Lee was not giving an expert opinion on how the children died at the appeal - he was commenting on how his article was misused. The expert opinion on the causes of deaths and deterioration came after he and others had examined the medical records.

I don't blindly trust the criminal court. It's on a case by case basis. It's this idea I "just don't understand" because I happen to believe she's guilty. Your opinion holds no more weight than mine. If there's problems in the case it'll all come out but right now there's nothing to suggest that. What matters the most at this point in time is what happened in that court room.

@Firefly1987I don’t think you don’t understand because you think she’s guilty. I think you don’t understand the burden of proof you’ve shown that to be so. Your misunderstanding of the BOP means your whole understanding of what had to be proven in this case, by whom and to what standard is compromised - and it is that which undermines my respect for your opinion.

Anyway, I am bowing out now as this argument isn’t going anywhere.

So in other words if I don't agree with you I don't understand the burden of proof 😆not up to me anyway. The jury obviously thought it was met who were there-not us.

It's simply not the case that there's nothing to suggest that there are problems in the case, the case is now being challenged from every angle. There is plenty to suggest that there was numerous, serious problems with the case.

Why wouldn't they have though?
The state were prosecuting and allowed a case where experts just came up with theories that just don't stand up to scrutiny, and the defence didn't mount a defence.

You are silly, nobody has suggested anything of the sort - they are just pointing out that it is concerning when an opinion presented in court, is so widely criticised by multiple more qualified experts

@kkloo Yeah obviously having no defence is a problem from an innocence perspective! She never did anything to defend herself at all-zero. Of course to people on here that just means her defence was out to get her along with all the dozens of other people, probably.

That is a good point BUT if every other cause is ruled out then it's most likely that's what happened. And I very much believe that Ben Myers would leave no stone unturned in trying to get a fair trial for her. It's very easy to rewrite the narrative now and that's just really concerning to me.

@Firefly1987

Upthread you said that the doctors cared so much that they reported LL.

How do you square that with them sitting on a drawer of evidence for a year as well as not doing there job properly as they did so few rounds per week?

Yes it was, but it's different now and many are ready and willing to provide a defence.

Well we know she had the final decision about her defence but at the same time she would have been given advice and we don't know what advice she was given, and also being in prison she wouldn't have been able to find her own defence witnesses so if she was told we only have Hall and he might harm the case it's easy to see why she might not have not wanted him to be called.

Her mental health was also in a bad state.

I have no idea why there weren't more ward rounds but it's really clutching at straws to bring that up-it's irrelevant to what was happening on the unit. Apparently the "drawer of doom" was more just about the unexpected incidents and mortality rates and how SB said it had become unusually full during the time period in question, rather than evidence against Letby specifically.

They weren't ruled out though.

Rewriting the narrative is just not a good way of looking at it. It shouldn't be about a 'narrative'. Many experts have expressed deep concerns with the evidence that was used to convict her. They are not simply trying to change a narrative, they are actively trying to get this case looked at again and willing to stand by what they're saying if it goes to court. This is an important and valid part of the legal system.

It's highly relevant, along with lots of other issues at the hospital.

I didn’t realise she wrote them in therapy. I’ve been very mentally unwell and I actually had a delusion I had done something unethical or criminal in my PhD thesis (I hadn’t but the research was on a sensitive area and I was scared) and I could imagine I would have written notes like that. I seriously believed I was evil and being used by the devil. I was Christina minister and an academic theologian who had never ever had a parking fine or ever been drunk!

the mind is very strange.

where did you see she had written those in therapy?