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

Good point about the notes.

No - applications for appeal were straight after the original trial and didn't include these grounds. Most of them weren't known at that time. The CCRC exists partly because new evidence can easily emerge long after appeals.

Ah so you admit she could be guilty then? I don't mind people having doubts to her guilt, it's when they declare she's almost certainly innocent I raise an eyebrow. How can anyone possibly know?

It's easy - lots of people: peers, parents, teachers, counsellors, managers, therapists - will advise you to get your feelings down on paper. It seems to have been something Lucy Letby did anyway. That doesn't mean she wasn't advised to do it by a therapist too.

When you step back and apply a bit of common sense, a lot of the melodrama the media has stoked around this case melts away

Yes, I'm only four in. There are about 35.

I don't see the relevance tbh-presumably they aren't aware she was really killing babies. How does this make the notes ok?

This is true. And there's not really any getting around it. She might still be guilty, but the problems with the case are obvious and this wide array of experts have not all come forward for nefarious reasons.

I, and others, have never claimed otherwise.
But I still feel that the conviction is unsafe based on what we know.

I'm replying to your post saying that "the whole therapy thing came out ages after the trial, some journos made it up".

Other people in this thread have given plenty of solid explanations for why the notes are ok, assuming that by ok you mean, not evidence of murder.

I have, but apparently there's an explanation for absolutely everything that makes her look guilty!

I'm very conflicted.

Exactly. A newborn baby isn't going to care whether it is being murdered or dying of some natural causes, it will be screaming in pain and distress

Yes.

I think this case is so fascinating precisely because it's such a complete head-scratcher. When she was convicted, it seemed that there was no doubt. Then many experts came forward...

Maybe we will never know. It seems very hard to prove medical murder. I mean, a large group of experts cannot agree on the meaning of the medical evidence, so I'm not sure how anyone else is meant to be sure.

I'm deeply suspicious of her, but I think she should be released because there's a chance her convictions are unsound. I think there should be a retrial.

You really need to consider what the parents thought of her before she they were told she was suspected of murdering babies. The parents of Child E, for example, the baby whose mother the prosecution claimed caught her in the act? They got very close to her and considered asking her to be godmother to the surviving twin. They came back to the ward after the baby was discharged with a hamper to thank the nurses.

what the proceduraL stuff and the credibility of dewi??

that wasn’t known at the first two appeals?

Oh gosh….but wasnt that the same for Beverley allit????

I disagree; I think a baby will scream harder having received a physical injury, as opposed to dying from an internal cause, when they are much more likely to be sleepy or barely conscious or not have the strength to scream.

Lucy claimed the tube was simply rubbing the babies throat and there was nothing to worry about to get rid of the mum. She certainly didn't seem to think the baby was dying. So either she's a shit nurse or a murderer.

The second trial jurors were told that she had been convicted of several murders and they could only consider that relevant if they assessed the facts of this case and decided it was.

Tell me, what jury is going to be able to disregard that someone has been convicted of 7 crimes identical to the one before them?

As for the appeals, she didn't lose appeals. Her application to make an appeal was refused. Appeals are only allowed on limited grounds. Because there were no legal errors in the procedure of the trial, and because the evidence she wanted to rely on was available at the original trial (even if not used, or not used effectively), there was no right to appeal. It doesn't matter if the judge thought she was innocent, it has to pass those tests.

That's exactly it-it's very hard to prove murder in a healthcare setting, it's why she managed to get away with it for so long and why people think she's innocent.

What do you mean by procedural stuff?

I'm referring especially to:

Non-disclosure of evidence re baby O (revealed late 2024)

Non-disclosure of evidence re baby Y and insulin tests (revealed early 2025)

Subsequent questions as to Dr Brearey's reliability as a witness (from the baby O case)

Questions as to Dr Jayaram's reliability as a witness following email disclosure 2024 (not available for first trial and appeal, may have been available for appeal on one case only)

Questions as to Dr Evans's reliability as a witness certainly existed by the date of both appeals, but his change of mind on the possibility of one murder method postdated them, as did other media statements which may be referenced in the application to the CCRC.

She called the doctor and documented the bleeding. No competent nurse would have started investigating on her own account.

I think it's such a difficult one because there's only two possibilities and they both seem completely unreal. Either there was a baby serial killing nurse using a wide variety of methods or there wasn't and we've wrongly convicted someone. If it were possible to believe neither, maybe I'd do that, but it seems it has to be one!

Ah ok

I was thinking the jury being misled stuff and non disclosure

Wasn't the jury told that if they believed that she was guilty of one she must be found guilty of them all by the judge. Or something similar.

Wouldn't an internal rupture have the same effect as a physical injury? How would bleeding from a gash in the throat be different from bleeding from a gash in the oesophagus in terms of pain, bleeding and response?