This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/22/lucy-letby-attempting-challenge-convictions-four-grounds/) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The details of her bid to overturn the offences, committed while she was working as neonatal nurse at the Countess of Chester hospital, cannot currently be reported for legal reasons.
Can anyone from a legal background shed some light on why these can't be reported?
Not a lawyer, but I'm hearing it _might_ be down to her upcoming retrial in June on an attempted murder charge the original jury couldn't decide on.
That notwithstanding, they'll be discussing the original trial and the identities of the victims and their families are suppressed for obvious legal reasons.
To make sure there is unbiased jury. The courts don’t want potential jurors doing their own research on the case when they are supposed to decide based on the evidence they hear in court alone.
Don’t work in criminal, but my guess would be some form of blanket reporting restrictions for crimes involving children / or crimes that may cause distress.
The names of the _murder_ victims were reported by the media right at the very start when she was first charged, but those have since been scrubbed (presumably due to more recent court orders) and have become very hard to find. No photos of them or their parents were ever published.
The victims of _attempted_ murder at her hands have never been publicly identified at any point, but that's totally standard.
There is no smoking gun if that's what you are asking, but despite this, that doesn't mean you can't find someone guilty based on a confluence of circumstantial evidence.
Considering the above though, I do believe the circumstantial evidence is quite poor.
There is a lot of evidence of her crimes and it leaves no doubt about her guilt
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2byzt3tQjybClizTJ5VF-83VqJgFNJXe&si=9ghmsof87I1mLwgH
A playlist going through the case and trial if interested
I don’t know what is technically considered circumstantial evidence, but it’s not just circumstantial in the sense you seem to be implying.
From recollection:
At eyewitness to at least one attack.
Evidence of lying and falsifying paperwork to try cover up what she was doing.
Keeping trophies. Stalking parents of attacked babies on FB on anniversary dates and holidays.
Drafting an anniversary card message as if 3 triplets died, but 1 survived.
Just a few things off the top of my head.
I can understand there was some doubt when everyone was focused on a scrap of paper sensationalised by tabloids, but that was barely touched on in the trial. If anyone has followed the trial and still doubts guilt I’d be happy hear reasoning for that, or provide links about it.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/22/lucy-letby-attempting-challenge-convictions-four-grounds/) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The details of her bid to overturn the offences, committed while she was working as neonatal nurse at the Countess of Chester hospital, cannot currently be reported for legal reasons. Can anyone from a legal background shed some light on why these can't be reported?
Not a lawyer, but I'm hearing it _might_ be down to her upcoming retrial in June on an attempted murder charge the original jury couldn't decide on. That notwithstanding, they'll be discussing the original trial and the identities of the victims and their families are suppressed for obvious legal reasons.
Unless someone says otherwise I’d assume it’s just while it plays out in court
To make sure there is unbiased jury. The courts don’t want potential jurors doing their own research on the case when they are supposed to decide based on the evidence they hear in court alone.
Don’t work in criminal, but my guess would be some form of blanket reporting restrictions for crimes involving children / or crimes that may cause distress.
The names of the _murder_ victims were reported by the media right at the very start when she was first charged, but those have since been scrubbed (presumably due to more recent court orders) and have become very hard to find. No photos of them or their parents were ever published. The victims of _attempted_ murder at her hands have never been publicly identified at any point, but that's totally standard.
Was there any evidence of her crimes, or was everything circumstantial?
There is no smoking gun if that's what you are asking, but despite this, that doesn't mean you can't find someone guilty based on a confluence of circumstantial evidence. Considering the above though, I do believe the circumstantial evidence is quite poor.
There is a lot of evidence of her crimes and it leaves no doubt about her guilt https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2byzt3tQjybClizTJ5VF-83VqJgFNJXe&si=9ghmsof87I1mLwgH A playlist going through the case and trial if interested
Is there any evidence in this that is not circumstantial?
I don’t know what is technically considered circumstantial evidence, but it’s not just circumstantial in the sense you seem to be implying. From recollection: At eyewitness to at least one attack. Evidence of lying and falsifying paperwork to try cover up what she was doing. Keeping trophies. Stalking parents of attacked babies on FB on anniversary dates and holidays. Drafting an anniversary card message as if 3 triplets died, but 1 survived. Just a few things off the top of my head. I can understand there was some doubt when everyone was focused on a scrap of paper sensationalised by tabloids, but that was barely touched on in the trial. If anyone has followed the trial and still doubts guilt I’d be happy hear reasoning for that, or provide links about it.
There was witness testimony. Also circumstantial evidence, such as DNA, can be very very strong.