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

I was the same about my academic work and I actually went into a delusional psychosis believing I had done something wrong. It stole my whole life from me. I was writing strange things down and telling people I had committed terrible crimes and was being sued by the devil and going to hell

It isn't clutching at straws to bring up either.

The lack of rounds points to issues with the doctors and the drawer of doom points to a person that wasn't that bothered about "murders" as he was sitting on them for a year,

Both show doctors that are not as proficient as they should be.

Many highly qualified people have also discussed that there are significant difficulties with trials that contain complex medical and statistical information - and that it can be very difficult to find expert witnesses, especially for the defence. I also find this concerning - we shouldn’t need to rely on retired and self-appointed experts and prosecution experts should not be able to earn far more than defence experts

Worth pointing out that various expert and professional bodies were raising the alarm about the way our system uses expert witnesses and statistics before the Letby conviction. The Royal Statistical Society have been at it since the early 00s, for example. And this Law Commission report is from 2011.

https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/expert-evidence-in-criminal-proceedings/

People who don't acknowledge this are either deliberately rewriting the narrative themselves or are ignorant of the legal landscape they're commenting on.

I find it bizarre that anyone would not be concerned about this - surely everyone wants a trial system that is as fair as possible

Apparently not. It’s insanity.

“Most frequently retired and a bit of a strange lot”.

Dewi Evans definitely fits into this category - approaching the prosecution saying it sounds like “his kind of case” (whatever that means), and having a serious chip on his shoulder against what he sees as the privileged medical establishment.

He is about as far from an objective expert as it’s possible to get. And he’s not even a neonatologist.

Yes. Even if it hasn't led to a wrongful conviction this time, it may do eventually. It could be you, or someone you love, when it happens. The risk is very much there.

And it goes to my point upthread, about it being logical for people who believe firmly in Letby's guilt to also be concerned and pissed off about these issues. I know people IRL who have concerns that a person they believe to be a murderer is going to eventually get out because of the fuck ups.

@Iocanepowderhaving sat on a jury, I would be genuinely terrified, were I wrongfully charged with a crime in the U.K.

I’m sorry you went through that, hope you’re much better now
I’m sure it was on the Netflix documentary. I may have watched a couple of documentaries about her though

Not forgetting his boast never to have lost a case. He seemed fundamentally to misunderstand the role of expert witness and the impartiality required.

Totally irresponsible of the prosecution to let him near it. Misunderstands the expert’s duty to the COURT. Not knowledgable enough about latest research into neonates. General weirdo.

Just: no.

Yes, that's inexcusable!

Mind you, Dewi didn't create the system that allowed and facilitated that behaviour. Only took advantage of it. Now he's out of the picture, someone else could still do the same thing. Which is why we need systemic change.

Agreed.
The police just ran away with Dewis evidence and didn't bother to verify it properly. I saw a podcast with a senior police officer who said he had investigated a case for the CCRC saying he was surprised a lawyer for the CPS hadn't went back to the police saying they needed to back the evidence more robustly.

If Letby did do it (I don't think she did) and ends up getting out then it's the fault of the police and the CPS for putting forward a case that was so amateur.

Thanks, will have a look. I was sure of her guilt at first but am now very sure that the facts weren't properly presented and considered and therefore not justice for anyone. Even if she did it and I'm not sure at all of that now, there needs to be better evidence. The problem is it was such a huge and expensive trial there is so much of the establishment, the NHS, politics and everything that would prevent any sort of new trial. The reality for me is that the NHS are frequently responsible for terrible things and will destroy anyone that brings that to light. From infected blood to maternity care, it's certainly more comfortable for some people to have a woman face life in prison than being accountable

if every other cause is ruled out then it's most likely that's what happened

But incorrectly ruling out a cause, or incorrectly failing to rule one in, are both more likely than medical murder. These are the sorts of diagnostic mistakes that happen all the time, even when doctors have the patient right there and can order any tests they want. Doing it from old records must be even more error-prone. Even within this case, experts have clearly incorrectly ruled out natural causes for some events (e.g. Baby C's stomatch air on June 12). The prosecution says the original pathologist wrongly ruled out air embolism as the cause of Baby A's death, and wrongly failed to rule it in as the cause of other deaths. Equally then, doctors may wrongly rule out natural or doctor-caused causes, or wrongly fail to rule them in.

Exactly - even if you strongly belief that the post it notes, handover sheets and whether or not she was wearing pyjamas or a leisure suit, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was a murderer - you should be even more concerned that she could possibly get off because the chief prosecution expert presented a lot of inaccurate and widely criticised opinions

This statement is breath takingly ignorant. The lack of professional standards and good care demonstrated by offering 2 ward rounds a week rather than the 2 a day which would be standard for such sick patients should make anyone with a modicum of common sense question the motivation and judgement of the hospital management and the doctors. The hospital and doctors provided sub standard care and when the consequences of that became clear, looked for a scapegoat. I know you are very wedded to the notion that LL IS guilty and Justice has been done but this airy dismissal of such a key fact (and the importance of more frequent rounds was borne out by the immediate improvement when twice daily rounds were implemented) is just ridiculous, even for you. The doctors need to explain why they were prepared to work this way - one of their professional requirements is to challenge unsafe practices which they signally failed to do. You know who did adhere to that professional expectation? LL. She made multiple Datix reports which would have highlighted the poor practices here. The babies and their families deserved so much better than they were given.

2 rounds a week is ridiculous! I’ve never had a serious illness but the times I’ve had to stay on a ward in hospital the doctors did rounds every day and that’s for an adult with a non life threatening condition.

I know - it beggars belief that they were operating in this way. The doctors should be answering why they did this, and what they were doing instead. And the GMC should be investigating with a view to disciplinary action.

Didn't one of the head nurses in a recent documentary about this day say that there were almost never consultants on the ward?

I know. “Infrequent ward rounds happening on the unit are irrelevant to what was happening on the unit”.

Nonsensical.

@Piglet89 well not so much irrelevant then as can't explain everything that was happening. No one's claiming the serial killer was operating on a perfect unit. Isn't this literally what Thirlwall is about? How she could've been stopped sooner? Obviously she could get away with her crimes without there being enough doctors making ward rounds.

@Isitevensummer And don't make me laugh about LL being professional. Her and the datixes are going to be another changing of the narrative just like the therapy notes I see.

But it wasn't just that, there was other issues with the ward.

It is incredible how the problems at the ward and the substandard care just hasn't been addressed at all by those convinced she is guilty, and when forced to acknowledge it people say say well that's just part of the reason why Letby was able to get away with it and so it gave her the perfect environment in which to commit crimes.

But even if you think Letby did it is everyone ok with the fact that no one seems to be held accountable for the substandard care? to use one example, what about poor baby D and her mother, she wasn't given antibiotics and received very substandard care, is anyone going to be held accountable for that or does it just not matter?

More complete information which corrects a distorted view is always a good thing, especially when lives have been lost. Datix reports are a big deal in the NHS. Nothing you have posted indicates any willingness to actually educate yourself about the multiple systems which were involved and failed here. The only people who were concerned about her professionalism were the doctors who were not providing the minimum of care that they should have. But you don't want to hear that do you? Because then you would have to stop making ridiculous comments like ward round frequency or LL raising concerns not being relevant.

Edited to say - this is in response to @Firefly1987 's latest nonsense.