So Judges turn down her request regarding the latest trial on narrow technical details which, as is often the case, is legally correct. This is the way the Judicial system works. I mention elsewhere the Fundamental Dishonesty argument which hinges on simple provable facts such as somebody signing a Statement of Truth confirming something which contains incorrect facts (sometimes known as lies). Defence lawyers will attempt to deflect such allegations using excuses (incompetence; accidents; mistakes) but Judges often see through those and go to the simple reality. Was the Statement of Truth signed or not? Likewise - did the publicity about Lucy Letby make a trial impossible? Answer - no. It might have affected a trial but it could have been challenged at trial, in front of a jury, which then could decide whether it made a difference.

I have sympathy with those who feel it WOULD have affected them but the law is clear.
Again, it's a stupid defence team not realising this route would fail.

It doesn't in any way affect the question of "were any of her trials fair?".
That is a different question. The problem is - will her lawyers be any better at putting forward arguments that can convince the Court of Appeal LEGALLY?

You can only learn these things by going through the process - as I have; several times.

Hospitals and doctors are notorious for covering up their failures.

The only way that Lucy Letby will get a re-trial is if ITV make a drama of the story being sympathetic to Letby, and I don't think that they are brave enough to do that. No one can be seen to remotely defend anyone accused of child murder, even if the accusation may be false. This is medical experts were reluctant to appear in court and question the evidence, because they know it would affect their career.