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

Yep along with MK family who I very much aaaume would have a better hand on the case than you - RG has only ever admitted being there and taking part..Knox was involved

agrees I think you rather prove the OP
point…

All of the indications are that the defence experts was ready to dispute everything except the insulin poisoning. He has spoken to the press, and Private Eye has printed summaries of the pre-trial expert witness conference.

At the time of that conference, Lucy Letby's defence seems not to have known of any natural explanation for two children's insulin levels. Since then, scientists have suggested a natural cause. But at that time, putting no experts up might have seemed the better strategic choice than having them admit they couldn't explain the insulin.

Are MK family salacious reporters?

first I heard

facing other chargers still doesn’t equal
acted alone

Is the expert Mark Hall?

This is the most intelligent post I have ever seen on this issue. Thanks for sharing. I’m neither a doctor nor a lawyer, but newly qualified medical and clinical professionals are hugely vulnerable because they are given big decisions early on. And as @Nyungnyunghas said - the people who are called on to testify are very rarely at the peak of their practice. It’s all very sad and sobering as has been said previously.

Surely everyone who has been bereaved knows guilt is one of the most natural emotions associated with loss and death? That’s why I find it so odd people take the notes at face value. Oh, she said she did it, so she did, lock her up.

but if you are painting a picture at least put in the broken sewage system,
the understaffing of nurses,
the badly run ward,
the consultants that were not doing as many rounds as they should do,
a ward that was not fit for purpose,
That LL had put in a greivance aganist the consultants and won,
that the consultants had forced the hand of the hospital governors
That none of the post mortems came back with anything wrong
No consultants has queiried the deaths
The drawer of evidence that the consultant did nothing with for a year
the contradictory emails verses consultants statments
that dewi volunteered for the case
that dewi had a letter from another judge sayung that he made the evidence fit the crime
dewi said that he jnew that she was guilty within 10 minutes.
And the parents that where suing the hospital for the death of their child.

There are more and these don't include the stats or the new medical research that has been found after the trial.

Very interesting, thank you.

The nurses (who were usually first on the scene) and the doctors gave very confused and contradictory accounts of who did what and who was where during key incidents. That is natural enough years after the event. In many cases, it's not so much that the documentation puts Lucy Letby cotside. It's that it naturally enough doesn't prove that she wasn't cotside ...

Being the family of a murder victim doesn't, in fact, mean you have a good handle on the case. It's totally understandable that bereaved families who've gone through such hell aren't able to process that a further injustice was done to them when the false convictions were made. People who've absorbed too much shit on the Internet, however, don't have that excuse. Nor do they get to hide behind the grieving families as an excuse when they do it.

Whether she will get a new trial or not, I don’t know. I can sort of see the argument for one, the expert criticism of the medical evidence would be a big factor for me if nothing else, but she has already lost appeals, she was found guilty by two separate juries and appeal courts really don’t like to overturn jury verdicts because the justice system relies on this being fair.

There’s ‘speedy’ and ‘in a timely manner’, though.

After all, the system managed to get her into jail on spurious evidence; it can do the same in reverse.

I normally take words to mean what they usually mean. "I did this" is clear. I can see how it looked in court. When you say "this" could refer to something else, you're basically just making things up.

The issues with expert witnesses are well documented, unfortunately. I don't do crime but I am in an area where their use comes up, and it's very far from a perfect system.

Mike Hall. There's a Private Eye issue about this - I can look out the link if you want it.

Normally I'd agree, but it seems like there was SO MUCH evidence left out of the trial. (I bullet-pointed the main points in a post upthread.)

Rudi Guede - the person who the actual evidence places as the killer is now charged with further sexual violence offences. The poor family of Meredith Kercher were misled by the authorities about who was guilty. Maybe a similar issue for Lucy Letby.

That would be amazing, thank you.

They weren’t witnesses and aren’t impartial. The only reason Amanda Knox ended up arrested is because the rapist and murderer Rudy Guede made up a story to try get less time. His DNA was found in the room and on the victim. It makes no sense for his to be found and not Amanda’s and her Italian boyfriend’s. You can’t clean up specific DNA and leave behind others. Rudy Guede has since been in trouble from the police for abuse against a girlfriend and other issues you’d expect from such a criminal.

I don't feel particularly confident in that tbh. There are obvious problems at the CCRC, and the director leaving plus the manager having to recuse himself, whilst both necessary, is likely to delay things further.

Is he really?? Wow, last I heard he was supposedly a reformed character.

I hope she gets a retrial. When I followed the original trial, based on the evidence presented, I thought she was probably guilty. But I found the later assessment of the medical evidence by Dr Shoo Lee's expert panel completely convincing that there were very likely no murders at all, and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. The most shocking aspect for me is that one of the doctors who accused her may have been responsible for killing one of the babies himself, by accidentally perforating their liver. Overall the conviction seems clearly unsafe and this seems like a horrendous miscarriage of justice.

But we know they don’t. Do you expect to meet a brass band if someone says ‘time to face the music!’ or see half of Battersea if it’s raining cats and dogs?

Obviously they are figures of speech but words aren’t literal. Look at this

I have been made to feel as if I am evil and i feel as if I did this.

It’s a little post it.

Just a week or so ago I wrote a long post on here that I regretted my children, wished I hadn’t had them. The next day I asked MNHQ to withdraw it because I hadn’t meant it. It was just talk after an exhausting day. People say things they don’t really mean literally all the time. I hate you; I’m going to kill him when I find him; bloody hell, I could throttle James, he had the forms all along …

Yeah it didn't last long.

But the attraction some people retain to Knix guilt is what I was thinking of when I said upthread that Letby couldn't do public facing work and would need a new identify. That's a situation where not only was the conviction obvious bollocks but there's also an undeniable piece of shit who obviously did it, which isn't likely to be the case if these convictions are overturned.

All true. The only thing that leaps out at me is that there's no evidence of exactly how a badly run unit resulted in the babies' deaths. Direct connections need to be made. A baby can be on a bad unit and also be murdered if there's a murderer around. Both things can be true. So the defence would need to show how a bad unit directly caused the deaths, and in the ten-month trial, they didn't.

sweet? Normal? Have you not heard the stories of what the babies’ families have said about her demeanour and actions around them and their babies?!

I think she may get a retrial.

But I do think she is guilty.